Name: City Council 10-27-26
Uploaded: 2026-10-27
Duration: 3 h 6 min 5 s
Description: The Medford City Council addressed multiple municipal matters, including Law Department budget reductions, capital stabilization appropriations, and property transfer proposals. The council also approved resolutions supporting Tufts resident assistants, proposing a ban on black plastic takeout containers, and submitting comment on regional sewer overflow plans.

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.6-flash from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The Medford City Council addressed multiple municipal matters, including Law Department budget reductions, capital stabilization appropriations, and property transfer proposals. The council also approved resolutions supporting Tufts resident assistants, proposing a ban on black plastic takeout containers, and submitting comment on regional sewer overflow plans.

0:57 Resolution Honoring Congregational Church of West Medford — Approved a resolution celebrating the 154-year history and closure of the Congregational Church of West Medford Sanctuary UCC.
13:15 Approval of Records and Committee Reports — Approved previous meeting records and committee reports addressing resident services and an executive session legal settlement.
15:09 Cost Analysis Request for City Employee Vacation Time — Referred a request for a cost analysis on increasing city employee vacation time to the Administration and Finance Committee and requested an HR report by the end of December.
18:40 Support Resolution for Tufts Resident Assistants — Approved a resolution expressing full support for the United Labor of Tufts Resident Assistants in their contract negotiations with Tufts University.
38:26 Ordinance Request Banning Black Plastic Takeout Containers — Approved a resolution requesting the Energy and Environment Committee draft an ordinance banning black plastic takeout containers in consultation with local business groups.
50:41 Veterans Department Vacancy Update Request — Referred a resolution requesting an update and temporary staffing plan for a vacancy in the Veterans Department to the city administration and the next regular meeting.
55:29 Comcast Grant of Location at 75 Riverside Avenue — Approved a grant of location petition from Comcast to install underground conduit and manhole structures at 75 Riverside Avenue subject to engineering conditions.
1:00:41 Common Victualler's License for Pavement Coffeehouse — Approved a Common Victualler's license for LSM Limited doing business as Pavement Coffeehouse at 177 College Avenue.
1:06:22 Linkage Fee Ordinance Update — Referred an updated linkage fee ordinance incorporating an affordable housing category to the Community Development Board.
1:13:07 Approval of Legal Claims Settlements — Approved two sidewalk slip-and-fall legal claim settlements of $5,000 each.
1:16:17 Capital Stabilization Fund Appropriations — Approved Capital Stabilization Fund appropriations of $45,470 for firefighter turnout gear and $200,000 for ongoing soil remediation at 448 High Street.
1:20:39 School Project Capital Reappropriation — Approved reappropriating $57,870 in Capital Stabilization funds from the Roberts Elementary repair project to cover a feasibility study deficit for Brooks Elementary.
1:23:21 City Charter Implementation Update — Referred a resolution requesting city charter implementation steps to the Department of Elections and the Mayor following receipt of a legal memorandum.
1:37:23 McCormick Avenue Land Transfer and Sale — Referred an order authorizing the transfer and sale of two municipal parcels on McCormick Avenue to the Committee of the Whole for broader review with city departments.
2:10:59 MWRA Combined Sewer Overflow Comment Letter — Approved submitting a comment letter to the MWRA project team advocating for complete elimination of combined sewer overflows in regional waterways.
2:32:13 Police Chief Search Funding Request — Tabled a stabilization fund appropriation request for the police chief search.
2:33:32 FY2027 Law Department Supplemental Budget — Approved cutting $297,553.44 from the proposed Law Department supplemental budget, providing one month of salary, and requested details on a planned legal practices audit.
3:00:31 Board and Commission Appointments — Approved appointments and reappointments to the Cemetery Trustees, Chevalier Auditorium Commission, and Board of Health.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: 18th meeting, Medford City Council is called to order. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. Please rise to salute the flag. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records 26-189 offered by President Bears, Councilor Leming, and Councilor Mullane. Resolution to celebrate and honor the transition and closure of the Congregational Church of West Medford Sanctuary United Church of Christ. Whereas the Congregational Church of West Medford Sanctuary United Church of Christ has served as a heart of the Medford faith community for 154 years, and whereas a final act of public ministry and closing worship and celebration was held on October 17th, And whereas we honor, grieve, celebrate, and reflect on the deeply meaningful role of this faith community in our city's history, now therefore be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we celebrate and thank all of the residents who have been part of the Congregational Church of West Medford Sanctuary UCC community. Be it further resolved that we honor the continued leadership of Reverend Wendy Miller Olapade as a faith leader in our community and thank her and the members of the Sanctuary UCC legacy team for their work to celebrate their community during this transition and closure. I will start with members of the council, and then I do have a letter that was sent by a member from the public, which I will read, and then we can hear from members of the public. Councilor Leming.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes, thank you. Last week, myself and a few other members of this body were privileged to attend what was both a very beautiful and a very sad day for many members of the community, which was the final worship of the Sanctuary UCC team, which was led by one of the great leaders of our community, the Reverend Wendy Miller Olapade, who is one of the warmest and most eloquent people that I know. She and her family put on a put on a noble fight over for the entirety of her ministry to keep up keep up this church that has been a pillar in our community for 154 years. We got to hear many public speakers. We got to hear many distinguished speakers. We got to hear many residents whose lives have been touched by Sanctuary UCC.

And we got to celebrate the legacy that it will continue to have on our community. So I just, for one, would like to give out my congratulations to Reverend Wendy for all of the hard work and effort she's put into this, as well as all the light that she's shed on so many members of the community. And I know that many, many residents of Medford who's in parents, grandparents whose lives have been touched by Sanctuary UCC feel the exact same way. So all I have to say is thanks to everybody who's ever been involved with that. And it was a very beautiful celebration that we, that I had the privilege to attend. So thank you.

[Councilor Liz Mullane]: Thank you. Yes, I just want to echo some of the other comments. I was able to attend as well, and it really was a beautiful celebration. I think for anyone that knows Reverend Wendy, she is so open and welcoming to anyone. to come and join and it was certainly felt that day. Throughout the worship and the singing and the celebrations, it was truly a wonderful way to close out and open up into a new kind of beginning and chapter. And again, I know that so much more will come from it and all the great work that Reverend Wendy has done as well. And it was just wonderful to be a part of that and to be able to share that with the rest of the other Medford residents that were able to join as well. So thank you.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think folks on this side of the rail and folks across the city know how hard it is to build community. Building community is something that takes active work. It takes finding common purpose. It takes the smiles and laughter that goes into mundane every single Sunday. And Sanctuary UCC has provided that source of community for so many in Medford over the last century and a half. When I think of Reverend Wendy, who is one of my close friends in this city, someone I talk to on the regular, someone I deeply, deeply enjoy, I think I, I'll always learn so much. And if I've learned anything about the impact that Sanctuary UCC has had on Medford, it's that despite the closure of the church this year, the love, the grace, the lessons of the church will live on in our community members for generations to come. The impact that Sanctuary UCC has had on Medford is immense. When I was growing up here, Reverend Wendy was actually one of the first people I saw in the faith community who was out there at all the interfaith events of the city. She led that charge. And through those events, I think they've brought a lot of cross-cultural communication throughout the city, a lot of appreciation of the diversity of faith, of community here in Medford, and a greater acceptance of everyone as they are, as they are created.

Our country, of course, goes through a lot of social turmoil. But I think the message that Sanctuary UCC has given to this city and to our broader community is one that kind of finds stability despite the chaos and one that spreads love despite all the hate that there is in the world.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I wanna read a letter now from Kim Grubb. I'd like to speak regarding the resolution recognizing the closing of the Congregational Church of West Medford. I'm sure that those who are putting forward this resolution may be focusing primarily on the last 13 years of the church's history. However, I feel it is important to recognize and remember all the years that came before under the leadership of the many ministers who helped shape this church and its place in community. The Congregational Church of West Medford has a history spanning more than 150 years. Its story began with a woman named Rachel Barnes who started a Sunday school in her home so that children in West Medford would not have to walk all the way to Medford Square or Arlington to attend Sunday school. That simple act of caring for children was the beginning of something that would become an important part of the community for generations. In June 1872, residents of West Medford founded the Congregational Church of West Medford. At the time, there was already a mystic congregational church in Medford Square. A wooden church with a steeple was built at Harvard and Bower Streets on the site where the fire station stands today. The church's bell became the community's fire alarm, and its clock served as a timepiece for West Medford. From its earliest days, the church was more than a place of worship. It was an important part of everyday life in the community. Between 1889 and 1895, under the leadership of Reverend Herbert Warner Stebbins, the church experienced an extraordinary period of growth. Carriages and barges were sent to Hillside to bring people who were convalescing to Sunday morning services. The cost was 20 cents per person each way. A committee was formed to help unemployed people find jobs, and an athletic association was formed, which was later taken over by the town. Sunday school enrollment reached 381 children, and the church had two large choirs. These accomplishments tell us something important about the church. Its mission extended beyond its own congregation. It was a place where people came together to care for one another and meet the needs of the wider community. On March 4, 1903, tragedy struck when the church burned to the ground after its bell sounded the first alarm, but the congregation did not give up. Parishioners came together determined to rebuild. Just two years later, they dedicated a new granite church at 400 High Street. The city helped pay for a clock in the new steeple, and its clock and chimes continued to mark time for the people of West Medford. The church prospered after the First World War and again after the Second World War. In 1954, the parish house was added, providing even more space for the congregation and its activities. Throughout its history, CCWM continued to find ways to serve its community. In the early 1970s, an associate minister helped run Weekend Drop-in Space for Teenagers, providing young people with a place to gather. This church's ninth minister, Dr. Gordon Washburn, served for more than 35 years. He was also a member of the Medford School Committee in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was deeply invested in the community and always willing to help wherever he could. That spirit of service continued through the many programs and organizations that called CCWM home. These included Community Family, an adult daycare program, Gentle Dragon Preschool, Bright Stars Afterschool Program, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Scout Troops, as well as Camp Fire Girls and Boys. The church also hosted an innovative group called New Beginnings for people who were recently divorced. Through English at Large, volunteers helped immigrants learn English and offered other forms of support as they adjusted to life in this country. And of course, CCWM was known as the eatingest church in Medford. We hosted countless community gatherings and meals, including lobster luncheons, Phinney and Hattie dinners, pancake breakfasts, Easter breakfasts, and turkey dinners. And one of the biggest events was the annual church fair, which brought everyone together. Members prepared food, knitted items, and contributed all sorts of treasures for the ever-popular White Elephant Room. We held many Bible studies to bring us closer to Christ for all members, and most recently, before we sold the church building building, the creation of the Lakota Youth Stay Program that is still run by some past members of CCWM on their own. These events were about more than raising money. They brought people together, created friendships, and made the church a welcoming place for the community. The music program was so beautiful and would just draw people in. Now I'd like to share why this history means so much to me personally. I was born into this church in 1958. As soon as I was old enough, I became involved in volunteering in just about every aspect of church life. I taught Sunday school for more than 30 years, sang in the choir, and served on numerous committees alongside so many wonderful people. My weeks were filled with meetings, teaching Sunday school, and working with youth groups. I could go on about my experiences and memories for over 60 years of being a member and attending CCWM, including the years before we sold the building. The church is not simply somewhere I went on Sundays. It was a major part of my family and my identity. One of the things that made CCWM so special was its people. Over the years, people came and went, but the friendships and connections remained meaningful. My children grew up knowing many of the wonderful people I had grown up with—even those who were part of the Church for only a short time—became part of the caring community. As we recognize the closing of the Congregational Church of West Medford, I hope we remember its entire history. We should remember the people who built it, the ministers who led it, the generations who worshiped there, the children who learned there, the volunteers who gave their time, and the countless people in the community who benefited from its presence. CCWM was a place of faith, service, generosity, friendship, and love. It was part of the fabric of West Medford for more than 150 years. CCWM may be gone, but the history and the contributions and memories remain. This is what the Congregational Church of West Medford was all about, and this is the legacy I hope we will recognize and honor. Thank you, Kim Grubb, Medford.

Is there anyone else either here or on Zoom who would like to speak on this item? All right, seeing none, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Records and reports of committees. The records of the meeting of October 13th, 2026 were passed to Councilor Callahan. Councilor Callahan, how did you find the records? Nope.

[Councilor Liz Mullane]: Yes, so at the last resident services and public engagement committee, we discussed the ward meetings, the Ward 5 meeting that happened, as well as talking about the newsletter, the noise ordinance and the city website. So if anyone is interested in working on any of those, please reach out to us or join the next committee meeting, which is next week. And then our next ward meeting is going to be ward two on Wednesday, December 2nd, hosted by the dynamic duo of myself and Councilor Scarpelli at the Roberts at 7 p.m. And that's it.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Fantastic, thank you, Councilor Milleen. And then we have 26174, Committee of the Whole, October 13th, 2026 report. This was an executive session meeting on a legal settlement. Is there a motion to join and approve the records and reports of committees? So moved. On that motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Leming, do you want to take papers out of order or do you want to do refer? We'll do refer. Refer to committee for further discussion. Sure. 26-186 offered by Councilor Leming. Resolution to request cost analysis from the city for increased vacation time for city employees. This is referring to committee for further discussion. Which committee is this being referred to?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: So the intent behind this was the first motion to put out the request to the Finance and Human Resources Departments to get that report and then discuss it when the report was submitted in the Admin and Finance Committee meeting along with the increased vacation time resolution.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, so this is previously referred 26-018 to administration and finance, whereas it would incur a cost to the city, be it resolving a request for a report from HR and finance with a specific cost for increasing vacation time by both one and two weeks, and that this would be before the end of the calendar year we receive the report.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes. The idea behind this is that I have been hearing complaints here and there from staff that new employees only get two weeks of vacation time. That's leading to a retention issue. In order to increase that to three or four weeks, we would need a cost analysis of how much extra That would be in the budget just to consider during next year's budget season. And there are some costs, like those extra shifts might have to be taken by people who are working overtime, for instance, who would be slightly more expensive, but I think it would be worth it for retention. So the idea would be to... In fact, I'll just make a motion right now to request that report from the human resources and the finance department to be considered in the next calendar year after they've had time to compile it.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, we have a motion from Councilor Leming to approve, to request the report from the administration by the end of December and refer this alongside its other, to sit alongside the other paper in the administration and finance committee. Is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Leming? And the hearing on Comcast?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Sorry. Yeah, motion to take papers 26109 and 26-187 out of order.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: 26-187, the black plastic. We have somebody waiting on Zoom to talk about that, so I figured we'd get it out of the way.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: It shouldn't take too long. Okay. Can we take 26194 as well under suspension?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Great. On the motion, take papers 26-190, 26-187, and 26194 by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. 26-190, resolution to support the United Labor of Tufts Resident Assistants and their negotiations for a fair contract. Offered by Councilor Leming and President Bears. Whereas the United Labor of Tufts Resident Assistants previously negotiated a fair contract with Tufts University, Whereas the Tufts Residence Assistants are working to renew that contract to account for drastically increasing cost of living. Whereas Tufts University, without the input of Resident Assistants, is proposing to decrease the hours of RAs cut into the work they're expected to do and decrease compensation while transferring those responsibilities to non-unionized staff. Whereas residence assistants provide essential support to students by fostering safe, welcoming residential communities and helping students navigate the challenges of college life. Whereas the housing and compensation provided to resident assistants help make their education more affordable in an area where the cost of living is increasingly prohibitive. Whereas meaningful collective bargaining requires that resident assistants have a genuine voice in decisions affecting their working conditions, responsibilities, and compensation, be it resolved that the Medford City Council offers its full and unconditional support for the Tufts resident assistants in their fight for a fair contract and denounce any further anti-labor practices from Tufts University. Councilor Leming.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes, thank you. So I was previously involved in academic labor organizing during the five years that I was a postdoc at Massachusetts General Hospital. I think that the folks that I'm referring to that are the subject of this resolution were probably more successful than I was in those efforts. I'm always glad given my own, the frustrations that I've had with academic institutions over the years to see the rise of the labor movement within institutions like Tufts University.

The RAs at Tufts have been putting up a fight to renew their contract. It isn't even a first-time contract. They've done this before. They're just trying to renew it, account for cost of living, because as we all know, this is a body that fights for affordable housing a lot. It is getting more and more expensive to live, doubly so for students who have a lot less, who have a lot less income. And talking to some of the organizers in the Tufts Resident Advisors Union, it sounds like the university is kind of doing the same old tactic where they're trying to take back things that have previously, that were in previous contracts and previously the Tufts RAs had, but make it sort of sound like that is, make it sound like it is, you know, the appropriate thing to do. Like, oh, we're just going to give this to non-unionized professional staff without, without telling you. And, you know, that, that kind of, that kind of attitude is very frustrating to deal with. It's, it's not, it's, It's an attitude that I've seen a lot coming from institutions like this, and it's an attitude that absolutely deserves to be met with the resistance that the Tufts RAs are giving the institution right now. And so we're joined here by a couple of members of that union who would absolutely love to hear from them about how the strike is going, how negotiations are going, and how how relations between the Tufts RAs and the university is from their perspective. So thank you all for coming out here, and I hope that our body can offer whatever support that we're able to to your fight.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Do we have any other comments by members of the council? Seeing none, are there members from the union who'd like to speak? Thank you. If you could just give us your name and your organization for the record. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_12]: All right. Okay. Good evening. My name is Carly Hope. I'm the President of United Labor of Tufts RAs. I'm a junior at Tufts University. And I was not at Tufts when the original unionization efforts happened. That was when I was a senior in high school. And almost the entirety of that class of RAs has graduated, save a couple. And so our entire cohort is now all new RAs who have been members of the union the entire time they've been RAs.

I'm here today to speak on behalf of our leadership committee, all of whom are either sick in class or have a shift tonight, so I will be speaking on all of our behalves. I'm here today to ask the council to vote yes on the offered resolution to support Tufts RAs in our bargaining for our second contract, which we have been in bargaining for for about six months now. I'm also willing to answer any questions that anyone has afterwards if there are any questions about how bargaining is going. or our resident assistance position going forward. For the past six months, while RAs have been asking for inflationary increases to our stipend and more meal swipes for our unit, as well as other contractual protections, the university has been trying to cut our compensation by 50%, including cutting our full housing coverage, our meal swipes, and our stipend. During additional negotiations, the university proposed a restructure of the resident assistant role, a restructure which would take large portions of our work, namely our on-duty responsibilities, and give it to non-union supervisors, like Councilor Leming previously mentioned. The RA Union firmly believes that this new restructure would not be effective at meeting resident needs and make it harder for students to actually access the resources they need living in residential communities. But the university has not proven very interested in hearing what student workers have to say about this proposal. Well, the university has claimed that the purpose of this proposal is actually to reduce our stress and to make it easier for us to connect to our residents. But to the union and I think to many other community members, it is clearly just an effort to cut costs.

We are now, just now, after six months of negotiations, reaching the point where we are at a 50% decrease to our current compensation. Little wins, I guess. The university is currently offering a $2,242.50 housing stipend, or housing credit, which covers less than half of the 5,000, around $5,000 a semester it costs to live on campus. This change, this reduction in compensation would require RAs to pay to do our jobs, which require us to live on campus, to be resources to our residential communities. We currently receive 80 meal swipes, which is about five meal swipes a week. We went into bargaining looking to increase this amount in order to support RAs and help people who do not have access to kitchens or who live in residential communities that don't have easy access to kitchens be able to eat more than one meal a day. The university is currently proposing 40 meal swipes for RAs, which is about two to three meals a week.

They'd also like to cut our current stipend $200, in contrast to our desire to increase our stipend to account for inflationary increases, and so that our money goes the same distance that it did three years ago when we initially unionized. The total monetary value of these proposed benefits barely add up to our current housing package, and the university has not budged or accepted or offered any proposal which covers housing at minimum. This proposal is unacceptable to our unit, and we have explained as such to the university. We've submitted a petition with support from, with more than 1,000 members of the Tufts community, including residents who live on campus, Tufts students who live off campus, staff members, and other members, and our other union brothers and sisters who work at Tufts. We have flyered, chalked, written to Tufts leadership, and been incredibly candid with the university about the potential impact their new proposal would have on the lives of our unit members. We share data and stories from our unit, who shared that many rely on the current compensation to afford to attend Tufts at all, and that these changes would put an enormous burden on us and our families as we try to get an education. We share the issues that we as workers on the ground see with their new proposal, and discuss the ways that they might be overlooking key aspects of their role in favor of a flashy restructure. After months of sharing this with Tufts, we did not receive the thoughtful response we were hoping for. At the bargaining table, instead of listening to our concerns and considering how their proposal would impact more than 100 of their student workers, we were complimented on our maturity in the face of this stress, and were told by Tufts admin that they would, quote, not want to be in our shoes, as we had to explain to our unit that our housing might get cut. They explained to us that Tufts is also going through a financial hardship, and that they also have people to report to, so they understand our struggle. But what the university clearly doesn't understand about the struggle of the Tufts resident assistants is that most students working at Tufts as RAs are not doing it for fun. Many of them are already working additional jobs to help cover the cost of attendance and are already on financial aid. Any cuts or compensation are not cuts to our pocket money. For many of us, it is the difference between being able to graduate with minimal debt or having to take on crushing student loans or having our families make even more sacrifices so that we can access an education.

At every turn of this process, Tufts has been condescending, callous, and obstinate. What this process has told me is that if we had no protections as a union, Tufts would not hesitate to make changes which would materially harm their workers to save a buck. But luckily, we are protected, and we have the opportunity to fight for our compensation and our rights as workers. Tufts likes to consider itself a very civic-minded place that cares for its community. But their actions toward their workers, students, and the surrounding community speak louder than their marketing. When this process all started, I remember asking someone why Tufts would suggest something that we would be unable to agree to. I think the answer is that they were hoping that we would roll over and take this pay cut lying down. I think they thought that we were too inexperienced and disconnected to stand up to ask to be paid what we're worth. But I hope that over the course of the past six months that we've shown them that they were wrong. With this resolution, we hope that the Medford City Council can help us show Tufts that the community cares for its unionized workers. We would appreciate any support from the Medford City Council in our fight to keep our compensation for the next two years.

And we ask that the council please vote yes on this resolution to support the Tufts RAs as we fight to protect our housing, meals, and compensation. And I guess just to go over some updates on where we are at in bargaining, we have come to a tentative agreement about the first year, which includes a meal swipe increase, which is very welcome, as well as an increase in our stipend in the form of jumbo cash, which is like Tufts specific money. And we're moving forward with the restructure as part of the conversations for years two and three of the contract. And that's where we're currently at right now. The university would like to bring in a mediator, because we're not quite at an impasse, but we're getting there. And so that's where we're going moving forward. If anyone on the council has any questions about that, I'd be happy to answer. And we appreciate your support, and thank you for your time.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, just want to say this is, I think, some great experience, even though it's probably awful to be going through it for you as a student and a worker, who hopefully will be able to find a union job when you graduate, or maybe work for a union. I don't know what you want to do, but you're talking like an expert when it comes to a union contract negotiation. You have a very difficult management opponent in Tufts University, so we have been I was on the strike line with your peers three years ago to get recognition, to get that first contract negotiated. I know that was really difficult for them to do. Really, anything that we can do to support, I mean, this resolution is a start, but I You have a lot of work to get Tufts to use its multi-billion dollar endowment and its multi-million dollar annual budget surplus to not cut housing and food for students who are serving as RAs.

To me, it's a no-brainer. I, once again, don't understand this. I was up at Tufts a month and a half ago for the custodial workers, for the facilities workers who had to take a strike vote. And then I think 10 days after they took a strike authorization vote, Tufts was able to settle. It seems like maybe they just want to push it to the edge and then realize that you're willing to go on strike and then we'll finally negotiate why they want to do that, why they're going to take weeks and months of your time to do that. I don't really understand, but we're with you. I certainly support this resolution as a co-sponsor, and if there's anything that you guys are, actions, anything you're planning, please keep us in the loop. I sent some letters in the past. I gave a speech at a rally. I don't know how helpful those things are, but I think they're, you know, the least that we can do as city councilors here in one of the Tufts communities to help you guys out. So thank you.

[SPEAKER_12]: Thank you so much. We definitely have things planned, so we'll keep you all in the loop.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: I want to thank you for your courage in leading your fellow students in this fight. I mean, President Barry has already said it, but I'm sure it's not an easy place for you to be. And you're in school at the same time and handling all of this. And how you balance that, I don't know how that's happening. I have friends who are in the Harvard Grad Students Union, which went on strike today. So I was at that rally on that picket line with them. and just having conversations with them about how hard UDN negotiations are and the sacrifices that you might be pushed to take in order to secure a better contract for you guys going forward.

That's an immense amount of work that has to be acknowledged and it's an immense amount of stress and the burden to take upon yourselves that I think we should all be appreciative of as, you know, people who support workers, as people who are workers ourselves. It really stuns my mind how large institutions like Tufts and Harvard are willing to trample on the people that make the university run in the first place. I mean, we saw it. President Bears mentioned the custodial union rally that we were at. We saw it there. I see it every single day because, you know, I'm still a student and so, you know, I see how you guys make the place run. And it's crazy that they would come to you with a proposal to cut compensation, to cut housing. That just shocks the conscience.

And I think for that, You spoke so articulately about the details of what you all are facing that I think Medford residents will be appreciative to have an update on the situation and to know what's actually going on. As a student myself, I'm taking on tons of student loans. I couldn't imagine even $5,000 more in loans. The amount I'm looking at paying back is crazy. I'm sure it's crazy for you all, too. And I think in this time where regular folks are struggling so much with cost of living, we have to support each other. We have to back each other in this fight to make sure that we all get better compensation and that when you guys succeed, Medford succeeds. And so that's why you have my full support on this. Please keep me updated on any future actions or any future steps that I can take to support you all. But thank you so much for coming and being so articulate and putting such like a human face to the issue that people face every single day.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Oh, Council Vice President Lazzaro.

[Councilor Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I used to work for the fundraising department at a university. And also, I wanted to mention this because this is what got some movement from Tufts in the past about the dorm that they're building right now. And the neighborhood had some issues with some particularities about the building. If you guys are able to contact a trustee and tell them that Tufts is trying to cut benefits for our A's who are unionized and are taking an incredibly hard line against people who work for them every day and support the students who live on campus.

while they're, I'm sure, simultaneously doing annual reports for their donors about how much money they have and how successful they are, and presenting those glossy reports to everybody that they are subsequently gonna ask for more money from so that they can support the students. If you guys can communicate with those donors and tell them that this is happening, and if one of those donors can say, hey, Tufts, Why are you guys doing this? I think that that is a great way to have a productive conversation at the negotiating table. So that is what moved the needle on the neighborhood talking with Tufts about the new dorm that they're building. And I think that that's how you create actionable You have to figure out where the money is. And I get really upset when I hear about organizations like universities that are technically nonprofits, but they have very, very large endowments. And those endowments continue to grow and grow and grow. And the money grows by sitting there. And the universities still ask for more money.

continue to nickel and dime students like yourself and people who are working hard for them and for themselves and trying to make their way through the world. So I just don't think it's appropriate. I don't think it's something that we should be just sitting by and watching happen. So I applaud what you're doing and I recommend you follow the money and find a trustee if you can.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Council Vice President Lazzaro. Any other comments or questions from members of the council? Seeing none, are there any other members of the public who'd like to speak on this matter, either in person or on Zoom? You can stand up at the podium here in the chamber or raise your hand on Zoom. All right, seeing none, is there a motion? The motion to approve by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. 7, the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. 26-187, resolution development ordinance for the banning of black plastic takeout containers. Whereas a recent study found that black plastic takeout containers contain toxic flame retardants that bear high risk of seeping into food. And whereas the Board of Health sent a letter, I think that may be corrected, but I think it was the Energy and Environment Committee sent a letter to restaurants recommending they convert away from black plastic takeout containers. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council develop an ordinance formalizing the transition away and ban of black plastic takeout containers from our city. Be it further resolved that this be referred to the Medford Energy and Environment Committee for recommendations of drafting an ordinance. Councilor Leming and then Councilor Callahan.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes, thank you. And once again, apologies for the mistake in the text of the resolution. It was not the Board of Health that sent the letter out to restaurants. It was the Medford Energy and Environment Committee that sent the following letter out to restaurants in which they I was given a copy of it. It essentially discouraged them from the continual use of black plastic takeout containers on the basis that they can't be recycled, not in Medford, not in most municipalities across the country.

plastic takeout containers are generally bad for our health. I'm a big fan of some takeout restaurants in the city. had food in a lot of these black plastic takeout containers. And my understanding after the Medford Energy and Environment Committee sent this letter out to a number of restaurants in which they offered the alternative recommendation of using white or clear plastics instead of these takeout containers, most of the restaurants said that it shouldn't be much of an issue to do that switch.

You know, so I met with a member of the Medford Energy and Environment Committee last week who said that they were, the committee was excited to start drafting an ordinance and talk about this issue. for the City Council to consider. And I think it's, you know, I think it's an important issue to when looking out for the public health of residents and adopting best practices when it comes to disposable materials that the restaurants in our city should be using.

Councilor Calhan. After Councilor Callahan, I know that we have a member of the Medford Energy and Environment Committee on Zoom who would also like to chat about this as well.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: I'm excited to be working with the Energy and Environment Committee. I think this is gonna be something that, you know, we work with restaurants and other businesses on. I'm excited for us to move forward with this. And I would love to hear from the Energy and Environment Committee member.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: There you go. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for my colleagues bringing this forward. I think it's a resolution that I'll support. With that, I know that when we've had some changes at the restaurants, I think that having the Environmental Commission look at this, I think it's very important. My recommendation for Ken is maybe request someone from the Chamber of Commerce because I think that was one of the biggest issues when we did the, we eliminated the plastic bag ordinance and I think the biggest hiccup then was there wasn't anybody in the business district that really, was involved in the conversation. So if we could, you know, maybe ask the chamber to have a representative that would support that. And then the second thing, I think that, again, it's going to be the teeth behind our ordinances and how we enforce those ordinances, right? So I think that having the Board of Health also reach out and making sure that whatever information we do get that that the Board of Health is sending out the message as well because I think That's going to hold the restaurants and businesses that don't comply. And I think it also falls into the process that we're looking at in looking to see how we can put more teeth to our enforcement and collection of those fines. So with that, I would definitely, if we can, my colleagues would agree adding those two scenarios in would be, I think, helpful in this process because I think it is a very supportive initiative and I think that especially when you look at the different, you know, elements that have carcinogens and possibly hurt in our residents and finding it something that easy and just to eliminate it because there are alternatives. And if there wasn't alternatives, you could, there might be a question but I don't think there's a question with this. So I appreciate my colleagues bringing this forward but I also ask that we bring those two stakeholders involved as well to make sure we can streamline this process. So thank you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I think Councilor Scarpelli, we have a motion to amend by Councilor Scarpelli to also get the input of the Chamber of Commerce and businesses on the proposal and to reach out to the administration regarding code enforcement and health enforcement. All right, great. So that's a friendly amendment. We don't need to vote on it. Any further comment by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any members of the public, or did you say there's someone from the Energy and Environment Committee present?

All right. Rupita, if, oh, sorry, what? Oh, great, all right. Recognizing you from the Energy and Environment Committee, if you'd like to share what you guys have been working on on this.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_29]: Thank you, thank you very much to the city council for this opportunity and for bringing this up to both the city councillors, Matt Leming and Anna Callahan. And I also greatly appreciate councillor Scarpelli's input to have the Chamber of Commerce, their input and Board of Health also involved. I think we've touched on it, but just to reiterate, a subcommittee from the Medford Energy and Environment Committee, we last year took on this initiative to understand black plastic, especially use, especially as takeout containers.

As you know, the Medford Energy Environment Committee tries to look into projects that are good for the environment, but I was also personally very excited about studying this further because of the health risks that black plastics pose. And we started by surveying restaurants. We spoke to about 32 restaurants just to understand what the usage is like. And we found that a significant number of them use black plastics for takeout containers. So we discussed that within the committee and as mentioned earlier, recommendation was sent out to restaurants. We proposed a switch to clear plastics because financially that would not make a difference to restaurants given that that is a serious consideration.

And after the recommendation, we also, two members of the subcommittee went back and surveyed the restaurants. And they found that several of them have actually made the switch. So, the restaurants are also in favor once they were educated about the health risks. As one of the council members said, definitely a carcinogenic risk is there too. And the studies are up and coming right now. And then we also had a change.org petition and we got over 260 Medford residents support this. So I am very excited. The Medford Energy and Environment Committee is very excited to work with the City Council and find a path forward. I just also want to mention that this is probably not going to be one and all solution, getting rid of black plastics in our food, take out containers, but this would definitely be a step in the right direction. Thank you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we have a motion from Councilor Leming to request a draft ordinance from the Energy and Environment Committee with the friendly amendments from Councilor Scarpelli. And I would just request we further add that we refer this paper to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee so that when we hear back, that's where we can have discussion. on that motion by Councilor Leming as amended by Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by Councilor Callahan. It looks like we have one member of the public who would like to speak. Ellen on Zoom. Ellen, if you could provide your name and neighborhood for the record and you will have three minutes.

[Ellen Epstein]: Thank you, Ellen Epstein West Medford, and I definitely support this resolution and any efforts to get black plastic out of our waste stream. But I'm wondering why, or if, we could take it one step farther. Because it's not just black plastic that's harmful for us and for the environment. It's all plastics, especially when hot food is put in them. And there's lots of other alternatives. There are cardboard boxes. There's aluminum trays. that restaurants could be using.

I was really shocked. I ordered some takeout food from a West Medford restaurant, and it came in a styrofoam container. So I think there's a lot of work to do beyond just limiting or eliminating black plastic. I appreciate the work that the Energy and Environment Committee is doing and the work that the Council is doing to get us totally away from single-use plastics. Thank you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ellen, and that's a helpful piece of information. We have a styrofoam ban on the books already, so that restaurant shouldn't be using styrofoam containers for the many reasons, I think, similarly, that came up around black plastics tonight, which is that they're dangerous and environmentally harmful, but also dangerous to the health of folks who are being served food in them. So thank you for that, and you may wanna follow up with some of the city departments regarding that.

All right, any further public comment on this item, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, on the motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative and a negative. The motion passes. 26194 offered under suspension by Councilor Scarpelli to a resolution that the city administration give the city council an update on the recent vacancy in the veterans department. I'm going to speak briefly on this. Councilor Scarpelli can speak briefly on this and then we will refer it to the next regular meeting and hopefully we'll have a response by then from the administration. Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. We recently found out that our veterans director has moved to a different position in a different community, which leaves our position vacant, which puts a lot of our veterans in in fear and in confusion of what their needs to be met when it comes to their assistance and who they can reach out to and who they can talk to. So I would have put this on the next meeting, but I thought it was important that we put this on tonight to get the ball rolling and possibly ask the administration the phone calls I received, the communication I received from veterans that There is no one actually housing. There's nobody in the office right now. So when they go there, there isn't anyone to talk to. So some people said just go down to the mayor's office, but some people aren't comfortable with going to the mayor's office. They're very comfortable with talking to someone in the veteran's office. So something simple as maybe asking, you know, putting a senior that's working off their abatement process, maybe moving them into that office until we have that position filled. I know that the second in command in that office is also out on leave right now, so that's why that office is left vacant and the doors are shut. So if we could possibly get some administration to move someone there to assist our residents that are looking for assistance or at least some guidance.

As one person put it, just someone that can physically take my name and address and know that someone's going to respond. I think that at least that gives them a little bit of insurance in saying that I reached out to so-and-so, they took my name and information, and I think peace of mind, especially when you're talking about veterans and supporting our veterans and making sure someone's there for them, I think is super important. So if we could at minimal do that right now, but then I know that it's been posted, the position's been posted from what I hear, but I'd like to also ask the city administration what avenues are they following through to the HR department to get candidates out to interview and apply for this position. So at least that's what I was told, that the process is in place.

So I know that President Bears has other input to share, but I think that's the reasoning why I put this forward through a resolution for this evening. I know it wasn't posted. It hasn't been out to the public yet, but I think this just starts the ball rolling for the administration to get us some information that we can share for the next meeting.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And yeah, I'm, Andy, I think you're playing some music. There, I believe there was a post on the veteran's office Facebook page. I'm not sure what other communications have gone out to residents. It was a post by Veronica Shaw before she left. But I think we need a formal update and so I appreciate you bringing this forward. Councilor Scarpelli's motion is to refer us to the next regular meeting and also refer it to the administration for a response and hopefully have that response before our next regular meeting in two weeks. Is there a second?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: If I can, Mr. President. Yes, Councilor Scarpelli. Also to make sure that they're informing our resident with an actual letter or some sort of email or anything so they know what's going on, because I've also heard that they haven't. So I apologize. I forgot to mention that.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: That's all right. If we could add that. Clerk Siegel, thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Mullane, any further discussion? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item? Seeing none, clerks will please call the roll. Yes, 70, affirmative, none, the negative, the motion passes. Hearings 26185, petition for a grant of location, Comcast Cable Communication Management, LLC, Woburn, Massachusetts. Petition to install underground conduit in manhole 75, Riverside Ave. You're hereby notified by order of the Medford City Council that the Medford City Council will hold a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford and via Zoom on Tuesday, October 27th, 2026 at 7 p.m. A link to be posted no later than Friday, October 23rd on a petition by Comcast Cable Communication Management LLC for permission to install a new underground conduit system to service 75 Riverside Avenue. This is excavating from the existing Verizon manhole to place four inch PVC conduit and a proposed three-by-three manhole on Riverside Ave, as well as 54 feet of PVC conduit and a vault in the sidewalk to provide Comcast services at 75 Riverside Avenue. This petition is dated October 16th, revised October 21st, received and filed on October 21st and available for inspection in the city clerk's office. Engineering division recommends this grant of location be approved with the following conditions. Grant of location is limited to approximately 273 feet of four-inch plastic underground conduit and two three-foot by three-foot manhole structures and one two-foot by three-foot vault in the existing Riverside Avenue and East Transitway right-of-ways as depicted on the plan. Before starting work, the contractor shall notify DIGSAFE and shall obtain all applicable permits from the engineering division. The project must obtain a trench permit pursuant to section 74-141 of the city ordinances prior to commencing work. No other utility structures, conduits, duct banks, pipes, or any other appurtenances are adversely impacted. Comcast shall ensure that all sewer, water, and drain lines are marked prior to any excavation. At least 72 hours prior to the start of the project, Comcast must coordinate a butter communications with the city's director of communications and submit any required information that may be requested to effectively inform the public. Any proposed electrical conduit location must maintain three feet away from public utilities and approved as-built plan and CAD files in the state plane must be on file with the engineering division at the completion of the project.

Signed, Laurel Siegel, city clerk. All right, do we have a representative from Comcast here to discuss this matter? Thank you. If you could share a little bit more about this, and we also met in a special meeting last week, if you could talk a little bit about kind of the coordination you're doing.

[Dave Flewelling]: Dave from Walling Comcast, 9 Forbes Road, Woburn, Massachusetts. We'd like to speak in favor of the Comcast petition to place 273 feet of conduit to provide the service to 75 Riverside Ave. We did have a meeting this morning with the building owner's representative and the demolition company to try and coordinate the work. We're confident that we could do the work possibly in two weekends if the grant location was approved using the existing traffic plans that are already in place currently, meaning that East Transit Road, East Transit Way is currently closed so we could utilize that traffic plan to work in that zone. while the demo work is ongoing during the day, we would work on the weekends to accomplish that. So we think possibly two weekends we could accomplish the entire project.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. I think you're going to, you know, on that piece of it, you're going to have to coordinate with the engineering division. Yes. But I'm glad to hear that you guys are in communication with the building owner about coordinating and figuring out, making sure the demolition doesn't disrupt service, because I think that's the priority of everyone here. All right. Would you have the city engineer, you wanna? Nope, all right. So I will open the public hearing now. Public hearing is open to anyone who likes to speak in favor, in opposition or otherwise. Mr. Flewelling, if you could just once again state that you are in favor of the petition.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I'd like to speak in favor of the petition. All right, we now have that on the record. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this petition in the public hearing either here in person or on Zoom? Please raise your hand on Zoom. Give folks a minute. All right. Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. Is there a, Andy, I just closed the public hearing. Okay. All right. Is there a motion to adopt the grant of location with the conditions of the engineering division? Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. The motion to approve the petition for a grant of location with the conditions recommended by the Engineering Division by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? Seconded. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, presentations and similar papers 26188, submitted by the city clerk. Petition for a common Vixler's license, LSM limited DBA pavement coffee house. We have in front of us the paper from the city clerk's office, permit number VIC26-00038, issue date 10-22-26, LSM limited DBA pavement coffee house, location 177 College Ave, Medford, Massachusetts. And this is hours of operation, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Provision set forth by the city of Medford is to notify the city clerk on location, ownership, or name changes, adhere to the Medford sign ordinance, adhere to the Medford Health Department public sanitation ordinance, and adhere to any zoning laws related to Keno, and hopefully all the other ones too.

So we do have a signature here from Clerk Siegel. Clerk Siegel, do they have all the requisite approvals?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Great. And I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli. Oh, sorry. There you go.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Do we have a petitioner from LSM Limited Pavement Coffeehouse either here in person or on Zoom? If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom. All right, I see Larry Margulies. Larry, I will unmute you. If you could just give us your name and if, you know, representing the petitioner and give us a presentation, a short presentation on the business.

[SPEAKER_16]: Sure. My name is Larry Margulies. I'm the owner of Pavement Coffeehouse. We are excited to potentially open very shortly at 177 College Avenue on Tufts University campus. This is our 10th location. It's been a long slog to get to 10 stores, but we're very excited. We make homemade kettle boiled bagels and we roast our own coffee in Woburn. So yeah, we're a quick service kind of coffee shop. We replaced the Starbucks that used to occupy this space that closed maybe two years ago. So we've just been building over the last 10 weeks and everything is done and we're looking forward to joining the Tufts and Medford community.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Margulis. I think that everything is so positive and moving in the right direction. We hate to see empty storefronts. I know that. It's nice to see another shop come in and take over that Starbucks location. The only question I had that a few residents mentioned, one of the issues they had with Starbucks is a lot of the Uber Eats and pickups were parking right on the main street that was causing some some hiccups. Are we mitigating that in any way where we can have a separate area? I know it's tough there with the lack of parking anyway, but has there been any thought in that process to help that area?

[SPEAKER_16]: It is tough in this area. We are not opening with Uber Eats and DoorDash as of yet, but we will. Part of, you know, I don't want to speak out of turn here, but, you know, we have got other locations and surrounding communities where the Common Vic hearing goes first, so we can discuss these issues before we build and before we start doing things. But I was not aware of that situation with Uber Eats. There is on-street parking all along College Avenue. There is a Tufts controlled and regulated lot that is across the street on College Avenue.

I can do my best to manage the traffic of people coming in about what they're doing. But yeah, controlling a public way is not something I ever have experienced before, but I can be mindful of it. But yeah, like I said, when we open, we are not going to be engaging in these services as of now.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Well, I appreciate it. I just want you aware. I know that there are some limitations that you have no control of, but I think that I just wanted to see if there was any initiatives where maybe putting some of the area, an area that there is a pickup. Sure.

[SPEAKER_16]: I appreciate you putting it on my radar though, because the more clarity and understanding being good neighbors is what we want to be.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Okay. Well, everything else is in order, Mr. President, so unless my colleagues have anything else to add, I would move approval.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Do we have any other questions or comments from members of the council? Mr. Margulies and I also, you know, I'm sure, you know, I'm not sure if you've had a university landlord before or not, but maybe I think Tufts, you know, they have Tufts Police, they could potentially be helpful on this issue in the future. Sure. As well. All right, great. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Mullane. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Congratulations and good luck.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, motions, orders and resolutions. 24-047 offered by Councilor Leming, resolution to request linkage fee updates in Medford. Councilor Leming, I'm not reading all these pages, so if you could summarize it.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: You need to read the entire ordinance on the record. So this is right. This is an ordinance that we actually did discuss last term. So it was a. It is a formal update to our linkage ordinance, both to incorporate language regarding the home rule petition that explicitly enables it to increase year by year automatically. And now that we got a study back recommending specific linkage amounts for the affordable housing bucket at now, adds the fifth bucket for affordable housing in there. With the way that this ordinance is written, it's really not rocket science to get into the details of this. The text for the first four buckets is essentially copied and pasted. So this is essentially the language that I already put forward two years ago at this point to to put in the additional language for the affordable housing bucket.

Also in this package, I put in, as was consistent with the study, that PDS commission, and was funded by council, recommended linkage amounts for the affordable housing bucket, which in this case would be $8,000, $4,000 really for any developments between 10,000 and 30,000 square feet, and then $8,000 for anything above that, which goes in line. Just to clarify, if it's less than 10,000 feet, it's zero?

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Great. Thank you. Yeah. So yeah, all the stuff in that schedule only applies to anything 10,000 feet or above. So I believe what they requested was like linkage of $5 to $8, they said, per square foot. And so with this, those calculations are per 1,000 square feet in the linkage schedule. The other thing that I that I added in there was because the home rule law that was passed in, I believe it was 1989, said that ordinances for these linkage buckets would be passed by city council and the actual amounts would be set on the recommendation of the mayor and the Office of Community Development. I also added in, I also, changed in language to make it more consistent with what's actually written in the state law there. So, you know, it's all pretty basic changes, just add in the extra affordable housing linkage bucket, which is at this point really more of a formality.

This is a change to zoning, so linkage is a part of our zoning. So the next step for this would be to refer it to the Community Development Board so that they could look it over and recommend changes to it later. So with that, I will motion to refer this to the CDB.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: The motion to refer this to the Community Development Board by Councilor Leming is seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Mullane. Any further discussion by members of the council? Councilor Tseng?

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to reiterate to those who are watching that this is a really important part of making sure that when big developers come to Medford, they're paying for the things that the utilities, or at least the infrastructure that they're using in the city. And so updating this is a real win for residents in the city.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Seeing no further discussion by members of the Council, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item, either in person or on Zoom? In person, you can come to the podium, or on Zoom, you can raise your hand on Zoom. Seeing none, on the motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, having the affirmative, no, the negative, the motion passes and that item is referred to the Community Development Board. On 26142B, is there a motion to join this paper with 26142 and consider it later in the meeting? On the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. There were a few items where we were hoping to take some folks who are here to present on them. Can someone motion to take those papers out of order? On the motion of Councilor Leming to take papers 26191, 26192, and 26193 out of order, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Mullane. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, nine in the negative. The motion passes 26191. Submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Legal settlements, dear President Bears and members of the City Council, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following settlements. Frank Pavaleovi, City of Medford, Vivian Wright versus City of Medford. Necessary release has been obtained from each claimant. Attorney Thomas Lane will be in attendance to answer questions. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. And I do see Attorney Lane here on Zoom. Attorney Lane, I will, should be able to give you the ability to turn on your video and to unmute.

[Tom Lane]: Sure. They're very similar type cases. They're both slip and falls on city sidewalks. They each, the recommended settlement is $5,000, which is the maximum amount under Chapter 84 claims. uh the frank papalo leo fell at 26 city hall mall um back earlier this year he initially was seeking 25 000 for medical expenses and pain and suffering but again because the chapter 84 is capped at five thousand dollars He has signed a release and is willing to settle for the $5,000. The DPW did confirm that there was a defect there and they did repair the sidewalk after this fall. Vivian Wright fell on a raised sidewalk at 38 Holton Street on September 11th of 2024. She initially didn't think she was that badly hurt. She presented the claim two days after that was the DPW acknowledged that that was a sidewalk that was on their repair list and it was repaired two weeks later. She then successfully had some issues with her knee and has produced invoices and receipts for medical treatment and physical therapy that she had and we recommended that also settle for the maximum of $5,000. She had also demanded $25,000 but When we told her what the statute required, she agreed to willingness to accept the $5,000. All right.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Attorney Lane. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public on this item? Seeing none, on the motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. Thank you, Attorney Lane, and I'm glad we got you here earlier tonight.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I appreciate it. All right. 26192 submitted by Mayor Brianna Lingo Kern. Capital Stabilization Fund Appropriation Crest Fire Turnout Gear and Soil Remediation Project. Dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following appropriations from the Capital Stabilization Fund. $45,470 to fund new turnout gear for the Medford Fire Department and $200,000 for the continuation of soil remediation, testing, waste disposal and regulatory reporting services through 2028 at 448 High Street through what is expected to be site closure. The Capital Stabilization Fund has a balance of $11,428,450.

Fire Chief Evans and City Engineer Wartella will be available for questions. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Mayor. On the first item, we did receive notice and a letter from Chief Evans that he's not available to attend, and I will read it now. Turnout gear funding request October 27th council meeting dear president bears and members of the City Council I apologize that I will be unable to attend tomorrow evening City Council meeting to speak on the proposed appropriation of four hundred forty five thousand four hundred and seventy dollars for firefighter turnout gear I respectfully ask for your support in approving this funding which will allow us to purchase a second set of turnout gear for our ten newest firefighters providing firefighters with a second set of protective gear is important part of our ongoing efforts to improve firefighter health and safety and Firefighters are routinely exposed to smoke, soot, and other potentially harmful contaminants during emergency operations. Properly cleaning turnout gear after these exposures is essential to reducing the risks associated with those contaminants. Having a second set of gear allows firefighters to place their contaminated gear out of service for proper cleaning and drying while still having a set of clean, also having clean serviceable protective equipment available for the next emergency. Without a backup set, firefighters may experience delays in getting their gear properly cleaned and must rely on borrowing clean turnout gear from other members while their own equipment is being washed and dried. This purchase will help ensure that our newest members have the same access to backup protective equipment as our other firefighters and support our department's commitment to firefighter safety and resident readiness. I appreciate the council's continued support of the Medford Fire Department and I respectfully request your approval of this appropriation. Thank you for your consideration. respectfully Todd Evans, Chief of Department. Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Mr. President, I think this is a no brainer. This is supporting our firefighters and making sure they are carcinogen free when it comes to fighting fires and having that second set of turnout gear for them to move and protect our community. So I move approval.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Motion to approve, I will go to the soil remediation and then we can take one vote. So the second item was the 448 High Street soil remediation and we have the city engineer here and he can share a bit more about that.

[City Engineer Owen Wartella]: Hello. So this is for the 448 High Street soil site that we're trying to clean up and close out. We are in phase 5. This will take us the rest of the way basically. If you guys have any questions, I could talk about it a little bit more.

[City Engineer Owen Wartella]: It's a contaminated site of soils. There was a laundromat there years ago. We have been testing for decades, or at least 10 years. And what now is there's going to be some more air testing, sampling, and the disposal of those carbon units from the sites. And then reporting to the state.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, any questions? Councilor Blaine, is that you? No questions? All right, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the paper for both items, seconded by? Councilor Tseng, is there any further discussion by members of the public or any comment by members of the public on these items? You can raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chamber. Seeing none, on the motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 26193, reappropriation of capital stabilization funds submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Dear President Bears and city councilors, I respect the request and recommend that your honorable body approve the reappropriation of $57,870 from the Accelerated Repair Project at Roberts Elementary School, Council Paper 26-021, to the Accelerated Repair Projects at the Mississauga Elementary and Brooks Elementary Schools Council, Resolution 26-079. We have Ken Lord here from the School Department, from Medford Public Schools, Chief of Operations, Ken, I will unmute you, and if you can just give us a quick piece of information on this.

[Kenneth Lord]: Sure. Thank you, President Bears. So appearing for you tonight to request this re-appropriation, so we have three accelerator repair programs, one for the Brooks, the Roberts, and the Missituk, and our initial appropriation for the Roberts has some additional funding we need to move over to complete the feasibility study for the Brooks. We had initially allocated $300,000 for the Roberts, which was more funding than we needed. And we had allocated $200,000 each for the Brooks and the Missituk, but they came in a little bit in excess of $200,000 to complete those feasibility studies. So the 57,870 would cover the deficit that we would have for the Brooks and be able to allow us to complete that feasibility study.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. In the community that I'm working in right now, I think that we're seeing what happens when you let projects go and not be proactive. And the disruption of 200 students and teachers and the community has been horrible. So I'm glad to see that we're being proactive. in making sure that we stay ahead of the game. I appreciate Mr. Lord's hard work with this and making sure that a $45,000 project doesn't turn into a $450,000 project. So I move approval, Mr. President.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? Seeing none, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. I move the affirmative, none of the negative. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lord. 26-179 offered by President Bears. Resolution requests an update from the mayor regarding the city charter. Whereas the voters of the city of Menford approved a new city charter at the last municipal election on November 4th, 2025. And whereas members of the city council and school committee met with the mayor and representatives of the city administration several times this year regarding city charter implementation. And whereas the city administration has not provided a formal response to the city council and school committee regarding city charter implementation. And whereas the city clerk has not received any communication regarding the city charter, a copy of the finalized language or how it should be codified in the city's muni code. And whereas the city council and city clerk are not aware whether the state has been informed regarding the city charter. Now therefore be it resolved by the Medford city council that we urgently request that the city administration submit the city charter and the certification from the Department of Elections to the city clerk to be codified in muni code. We had further resolved that we urgently request that the city administration meet with the city council and school committee to finalize an implementation plan for the city charter. We had further resolved that the city administration provide an update on the submission of the city charter to all relevant state agencies.

So this was originally on for October 13th. It was tabled due to the late meeting. We did receive a response from the city administration. Frankly, a long overdue response. We've been really requesting guidance on the implementation of our city's charter for a year now. We've had multiple meetings and it took this resolution to get a response. In my viewpoint, the response was rather rude and unprofessional. I'm not going to read the whole thing out. I think we can attach it to the records of this meeting. But the short answer is here from Councilor Lauren Goldberg at KP Law. This is a memo to the Chief of Staff October 24th, 2026. In my opinion, the charter took effect as a matter of law following acceptance by the voters and no further action is required in that regard. And then in further opinion, the city is required to provide certified copies of the charter as adopted to the state archivist, the executive office of housing and livable communities, and the attorney general's office. And it's also required to keep a copy for the city records. Further, the statute clearly states, in my opinion, that the city council is responsible for providing for the recodification of the charter at 10-year intervals. The mayor has no role in these matters. The letter more specifically says the city clerk, and then, There's a detailed analysis talking about the meetings that we had and different opinions of how the charter should be interpreted. And essentially just this entire document says the mayor has no responsibility here. This is entirely on the city clerk and the city council. And I think we are all on the city council and city clerk side happy to help move this process forward, but we had not received any guidance from legal counsel for a year on this matter. So we do finally have that, but this opinion really was written, I think, rather rudely. I'll read a couple more lines.

There is nothing that the city council or city clerk needs from the administration in order to take these actions. I think that's objectively false. We need certification. from the Department of Elections. The letter further reads, further, it should be obvious that the city clerks that could at any time request this information. And, you know, sure, I mean, we've been requesting it for a year. We requested it in a... And we are still requesting it because the mayor does have a role in this process, which is that she is the chief executive officer of the city. And she is managing the departments that need to help with this. So I know that we took this in stride. Clerk Siegel is already working on this within a day of receiving this information. And our director of elections is in the middle of something right now, a very big election, but they are planning to work on this soon after the state election is over. and we'll get going on it. I don't know why it took a year for the administration to give us any sort of guidance or roadmap here. I'm glad we have it. But I think, you know, as we are persistently in this situation of questions about our legal counsel, this response, which feels less like a collaborative document or a legal memo to provide legal guidance and more of like a Don't blame me, I'm passing the buck, this isn't my job memo. I think it's very frustrating to me. We have repeatedly received.

legal memorandums that are not, I would say, objective viewpoints on the legal matters before us, but are instead messaging documents or policy opinions that support whatever the mayor wants them to say. And I don't think that is a particularly useful form of legal advice. And I think it's why we've gotten to this point where the city council has a very difficult time believing that the council hired by the mayor represents this council or is willing to kind of represent any of the viewpoints that, you know, seems not to be representing an objective independent viewpoint, but instead the political viewpoint of the mayor. We're here again. I'm not going to keep talking about it. And I don't believe there is anyone here from the city administration on this item. I don't see anyone in person.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think it's sad that we haven't had meetings, at least in private, with KP Law. President Bears and I started this term meeting, trying to get everyone on board with what the transition would look like to a new city charter. I am glad, however, that this opinion seems to recognize that all of the parts of the charter are operative, which back then when we were in those meetings, that was a real fight that we had to make sure that the products that the residents voted on in Medford We're all implemented and not just partially implemented but. I think with implementation we're seeing a hiccup where the lack of kind of organizational vision. of how we're going to actually implement this stuff is leading to all these patchwork conflicts that we're having between different branches of government and within, and confusion within the government as well about who's doing what, what's updated, what's not updated, how do we interpret certain lines of what we passed. I mean we've seen with the line item veto problem that, that we had where the mayor tried to do something that she didn't have authority for. We've seen it before in appointments to boards and commissions as well, and that whole process. And those are just two examples that I can think of off the top of my head. But I think all of these things have been popping up. And the reason why they've been popping up is because we haven't been able to all sit down together and say, How are we going to organize everything, right? And I think part of it, part of this lack of vision comes from treating the charter, the new charter as, oh, this just switches us toward elections and that's it. The new charter does a lot more than that. I could go through a laundry list, and I'm not going to bore the audience today, but I could go through a laundry list of things that we need updates on. And we need to make sure, things that we need to make sure are in compliance between what we're doing now and what the text of the charter actually says. I mean, it's the constitution of our city, we should be following it.

And it's sad that we don't have members of the administration here today. to talk about it because there are a lot of these elements that I'd like to review and I think I'd like to remind folks that section 3-2 of the charter actually says the mayor is responsible for implementing the charter.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I think the charter is wrong and KP Law is right. The mayor actually isn't responsible for anything ever. Councilor Leming.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: You know, because just kind of wanted to... Yes, this room does not work for 11 Councilors. I did meet with the facilities director as recently as... I think it was last week with Clerk Siegel. I had also met with the, I think the Assistant Clerk and MCM Director Harrington and the previous Facilities Director and I think Nina, Chief of Staff Nazarian in late 2025 to talk about the configuration of the chamber, the ideas that we would do chamber renovations next summer, so summer of 2027, probably in July and August. There is no budget. There is, I think, I think many of us have the opinion that significant changes should be made, not just to the physical space, but also to the technological systems. And that if we're coming in here and doing significant construction and closing this space for months, we should try to do as much as we can. The administration wanted to take a multi-phase approach, piecemeal approach. I'm not aware of really any update on that other than that the facilities director has some sketches that were provided by the previous facilities director. He's working to figure out more what the direction of the administration is on this. I have requested that he come before the council soon, because I think the procurement process on this is going to take a while. And I do think that we should have input on how this is going to be, the chamber's going to be adjusted. I think we're going to see the rail move out. I think we're going to see maybe a significant change to this space. And one of the most fundamental issues I think is that we're still operating on our COVID era Rube Goldberg hybrid meeting machine of these random television screens. And I think that's gonna need to be adjusted as well. I think there's probably sound system things that are gonna need to change. So it's a really extensive project. I don't believe it's really being From a financial and budgeting perspective, I'm not sure that the administration has put much of a priority on it. I know that the facilities director is looking into it, but he's not sure exactly what budget is going to be available. And so that might affect the scope of work.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: I remember asking, and I think it was Paul Rye who said it would cost in the realm of $100,000 or so.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: That was just what I'm remembering off the top. I could be wrong if somebody wanted to look at the record, but do you think that we need a motion to request that the facilities director appear?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: He's aware, I think he needs to figure out what's going on internally in the administration and maybe in a month or two we'll need to, I don't think if he comes here he's going to be able to give us any of the answers that we want.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Got it. Yeah, I'm just imagining after the ward elections are done having new Councilors sit in between, awkwardly in between these spaces right here. You know it's probably better to actually have extra seats for everybody.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes it doesn't work. The chamber does not function. I do believe there was a suggestion that we could all share seats but I don't think that's viable.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: It's not a great suggestion. Anyway that's all I had for this. Thank you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. Anything else on the charter. Is there a motion to refer this to the Department of Elections to request the information that's needed, as well as to refer this to the mayor? On the motion of Councilor Callahan, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom? If you're in person, please come to the podium. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand on Zoom.

All right, I see Micah Kesselman. Micah, if you could provide your name and neighborhood for the record, and you will have three minutes. We can't hear you, Micah. You are unmuted, but we cannot hear you. All right. Any further comment on this item? No. Okay. On the motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, 7, the affirmative and the negative, the motion passes. 26-181 offered by President Bears and Councilor Scarpelli, order to transfer and authorize the sale of McCormick Avenue parcels. This is the text of an item that was brought up last year. There's some minor adjustments but it's largely the same text that was turned down by the council. I believe only Councilor Leming and Councilor Scarpelli voted in favor at the time. This is 26-181, order to transfer and authorize sale of the McCormick Avenue parcels. Whereas the city is the owner of two parcels of land located on McCormick Avenue, each containing 3,600 square feet, more or less, identified as the assessors as parcels F1337 and F1338, and described in certificate of title number 166463, filed with the Middlesex South Registry District of the Land Court, together the city property. Whereas the city property has been vacant and unused since the city acquired the city property in the 1950s. Did you pursue it to a tax taking and as surplus to the needs of the city? Whereas there is an urgent need to promote and develop affordable housing in the city of Medford in the region. Whereas the sale of the city property will benefit the city by putting the city property to productive and tax generating uses. And whereas the proceeds of said sale may be used by the city for the purpose of promoting affordable housing. And whereas now the affordable housing trust has been operating for over a year and the council has reviewed the HT annual action plan since the vote of the council not to approve a similar order in April, 2025. Now, therefore, be it ordered by the Medford City Council, one, that the City Council hereby declares that the City property is surplus to the needs of the City and available for disposition, and two, that the City Council hereby transfers the care, custody, and control of City property from the tax custodian for tax title purposes to the Mayor for general municipal purposes and or for the purpose of disposition on such terms and conditions as is in the best interest of the City. And three, that the mayor be authorized to convey the city's right, title, and interest in said city property, provided that said sale is in compliance with the provisions of General Laws Chapter 30B, the Uniform Procurement Act, and to take any and all other actions may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish said disposition. And four, that this order shall take effect upon passage.

So Councilor Scarpelli reached out to me and wondered if it was an apt time to bring this matter back up. given that we now have the Affordable Housing Trust Action Plan and the Trust Fund in a more stable place. So we're putting it back on for consideration and I will go to Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Again, thank you, Mr. President. I think that, to be clear, I want to make sure that the residents, I know a few people have called that I've known for a long time on McCormick and there's, they had some concerns and I said, this is just a, you know, when you look at different properties at different, opportunities for us to look at a plot of land and then have the ability to incorporate housing that would fit into the community without changing the look of the neighborhood. And that being an opportunity to both increase tax revenue, but most importantly, we've been talking about different avenues for the Affordable Housing Trust and looking at these type of projects where you're not looking to You know, look at other avenues where you maybe look at some sort of tax or some sort of percentage taking of, you know, home sales and for private properties. But you look at this as a clear avenue that we can really support this initiative, but at the same time, really support the residents in that neighborhood to make sure that If that lot is sold, that it's used in the proper or sold to the proper manner and followed through with the proper zoning and oversight with the boards in place. So I think that this is a benefit that we do have that we can really focus on. bolstering what we've all been asking for in an avenue that's it's real um a lot of the properties that we do see around the community it's really not as probably as big as these two but this is something that has to go out uh if it does go up for sale and and it looked at i talked to the city assessor this morning and uh it it would be a parcel that Some would have to purchase both to build a reasonable home in that area that would suit that neighborhood. But again, it could be something simple as giving the existing neighbors, the abutters, an opportunity to grow for their families and help their existing homes move to the next level instead of possibly having to move out of the cities. So using this as one example, but there's so many in the community, but I think that really focusing on the identified opportunity to send this, the funding to the Affordable Housing Trust is something that really was added from the last conversation that really stuck out with me. So that's where I am, Mr. President. So thank you.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes, so I remember this was on last year and we had communications from the mayor where she said that we needed the proceeds from this to pay for a study for the Affordable Housing Trust. I think it was for the linkage fee studies specifically. Would, I suppose, and that was a year ago, so it could have changed. I guess my question for this is, does the council actually have any guarantees that proceeds from sale of that land go into the Affordable Housing Trust at this point? Has there been communications from the mayor indicating that that's still the plan?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Council, it's a great question because in my efforts to contact the city solicitor, it's been falling on deaf ears. So I mean, we could, I think that would be part of this resolution with the vote that Mr. President, if we can just bring it back to the administration as part of the motion that the mayor would follow our wishes to make this as part of the process. So if that's reasonable, I think that's a great question.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Sure. Councilor Lummey. Right. I would definitely support that. I would personally, after hearing from my colleagues, of course, feel more comfortable tabling this until we did get it in writing that that's still, that would still be the idea behind this. Because I imagine this could be one of those things where if we, if this does end up passing, which, again, I don't know what my colleagues say, and then we make that request to the administration, the administration could, like, legally just say, like, nah. And then, yeah. Sorry.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Thank you. It seems like there are outstanding questions about what the money's gonna be used for. And I think for me personally, and I don't know about other councilors, there are questions I have about this, given our discussion last time. I'd like to think about whether we've thought about other solutions for land. It's never a comfortable thing for governments to, at least for me, for a government to sell land given how constrained our real estate is and the needs of our city. And I was hoping that councilors would be perhaps amenable, instead of tabling it, sending it to a committee so we can talk about this more.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: I'm definitely liking the idea of sending it to maybe a committee. I have many questions. I definitely, from just a generic standpoint, I think that selling public land is rarely smart for a city. The things that I would wanna know is I would really wanna understand what, I would like to have a list of all of the city-owned properties that are not currently in use, right? So this is supposedly a piece of land that is not being used for anything. How many of those do we have? Where are they? How large are they? And why these, right?

I would like to understand what are other possible uses for the land. I want to understand other ways to raise the money, which I think this comes from the last time that it was here that Councilor Leming was mentioning. But perhaps that isn't part of this one, let it be for a very specific purpose, but I would kind of want to understand comparatively other ways where that money can be raised for the Affordable Housing Trust. I do want to have an understanding of where we are on the path to getting a community land trust, because community land trusts, they buy property like this, they buy land like this, because land increases in value. And the way that community land trusts work is they allow people to live on, they create permanent affordable housing. by allowing people to live in a property on land, but not have to purchase the land as part of the property. So that is one of the ways of having permanently affordable housing. And if we are giving up this land, we are giving up the opportunity to use it for permanently affordable housing later.

I wanna understand if there is already a known buyer and what that use is going to be. So I would love for those questions to go to whatever the committee is, or if it's gonna be tabled, to have some answers to those questions before we move forward. Thank you.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: Yes, so one thing that could be of interest that might answer a few of Councilor Cowling's questions is the city did put together a, it was sort of a community land trust working group which put together a report on just the logistics of doing it if a group of residents wanted to start the process of of really seriously pursuing a community land trust. Having a nice beefy amount of money in the affordable housing trust, which we are trying to do as a council, is pretty important to building things on that land in the first place. But one thing that report did do a pretty good job of is outlining potential parcels around the city that the city owned, which could be used for affordable housing. So I think that, not all the questions that they referred to, but some of the questions would be addressed in that report.

[Councilor Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I have a lot of the same questions as Councilor Callahan. I have a lot of the same questions as I had last time we were talking about this. The only thing that's changed materially, in my opinion, is that the nexus or the, you know, the study is complete. Significantly, I'm curious about why because there are I know that there are many parcels that the city owns. And I'm curious about why these keep coming up.

And I do think that it would be much more productive and valuable for us to address this. a topic as comprehensively as possible and look at all of the parcels that are available that we own as a city, look at, you know, their value, look at them as an asset and not, you know, knee jerk, sell off the assets of the city for, you know, reasons that aren't to the greatest benefit of the community. Though, of course, I mean, building up the holdings and the affordable housing trust is very valuable. I just would want to do it in a calculated manner. And I just remain confused about why these parcels keep coming up and no other parcels have ever been discussed. And also that this is something that we're still talking about and we are not doing anything to develop a plan for bringing in revenue in the city in other concrete ways that would provide for income for the city, revenue for the city, I feel like we're talking too much about the specific small thing. I feel like we spend too much time talking about specific small things. Like, I feel like we talked for a very, very long time about rezoning Boston Ave, for instance, and there are very small areas of the city. And these are very small areas of the city that we're talking about a lot. And I just think that like, if we talked bigger picture, it would be more productive. Thank you.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: I can't hear him. Okay, so I would agree that moving this to subcommittee and then possibly bringing in the assessor and other administrative entities that we can talk and look at all of the parcels. I think that it has been, it was brought up, the McCormick area was brought up at the first meeting, so I thought that that would be the start. But if we would move to a committee and bring in all the stakeholders so we could start moving projects along and looking at things in totality instead of just one parcel. I agree with my colleagues with that, but I think if we can do that, Mr. President, that's a good start, I think. But talking about it a year ago and then letting it go, I think that's not working either. So I think this is really just to kickstart things and see where we can go with that. So I would amend the motion just to move this to a subcommittee to your preference and ask the work together to bring in the departments. You know, I worked with the city's assessor to get an idea but also look at the, he could, we could share the other parcels throughout the community and see what the benefits are. for some rather than others and ask what are the options. So, thank you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. And just my two cents on this one, you know, moving, these are properties that have been in the tax title for 76 years. So, someone didn't pay their taxes 76 years ago and the city took this property. One of the things that this order would do is move it to the mayor for general municipal purposes and for purposes of disposition, right? So something that could be done is exactly what Councilor Callahan is talking about, right? We could authorize. Right now it's in tax title. It's stuck in tax title. It'll be in tax title forever. This order would mean that it could move somewhere else and the mayor could move that to be under the control and ownership of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. And, you know, they could make a decision, okay, we've looked at this, we've analyzed this in the context of our housing action plan. Do we think it makes sense to keep 7,000 square feet and try to develop a home? Or do we think it makes sense to try to sell this and we think we could do more? We could buy 10 affordable units with the proceeds of the land sale, right? I think that's kind of the thinking and it's what I was picking up from what the Affordable Housing Trust had presented to us was they need resources, transfer fee not allowed by the state, not going anywhere it seems. Hopefully, the linkage fee will be a starting point but and maybe some community preservation committee funds are a starting point. But I do think that these surplus properties are reasonable to think about transferring to the Affordable Housing Trust and letting them kind of make a determination, okay, do we think We keep this and we can lease it and that's useful. Do we think we could build something on it or try to build something on it and that's a useful endeavor or do we think that actually selling this at market rate and then having those funds to subsidize other affordable housing projects across the city is most valuable. So that was my thinking on it.

That's kind of why my, I voted against last year. It's why I'm kind of thinking a little bit differently about it now is that we've heard from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund about their needs for, funding sources. And honestly, a bit more of this is like I'm just looking around at the GIS map. If you go on the GIS map for Medford and then you type in Medford City of, I have it right up in front of me, you can see all of the different municipal properties and you can kind of hover over them and look at the lots. We own a ton of weird tax title or otherwise lots in the Heights. Most of them are on like public ways that were laid out or ways that were laid out and then never developed. Many of them are in topographically very difficult locations to build on. I think Councilor Scarpelli lives at the end of Butler. If you turn right and you look up, There's kind of a hill, an empty hill at the top of Foss and Fulton in my old neighborhood.

City-owned, two city-owned parcels. They are on top of like giant rocks so I don't know if you could build anything on them. But there's a bunch of that and I think we do need a comprehensive approach to understanding what are all these city assets because I think I agree in principle generally with Councilor Callahan that selling public property usually isn't the right move. And certainly I think selling the schools was a huge mistake in the long run. But these parcels, I think we really need to assess like holistically, does it make sense for the city to be keeping what looks like maybe 75 or 100 weird parcels in North Medford? And I just think the city hasn't had a plan for that and I think has owned these for a really long time. And if you look at these two specific parcels on McCormick, they're kind of the only two that are on flat ground and between two other houses. So I think that's one reason why it was a starting point. So I just wanted to kind of share my two cents and some of the research that I had been taking a look at. If this was a proposal to transfer the Hegner Center for sale or something, you know, I think we'd need to take a much, much more serious look at that. But there's the Fulton Heights City-owned parcels issue is something that needs a comprehensive approach.

All right, so we had a motion from Councilor Tseng to refer to Committee of the Whole as amended by Councilor Scarpelli to request invitation of the assessor, the Affordable Housing Trust and maybe Planning, Development and Sustainability to sit down and talk about both these parcels and maybe it's further amended by Councilor Callahan to talk a comprehensive review of the city-owned properties? All right. And that was seconded by Councilor Callahan, I think, as well. Is there any further discussion by members of the Council?

Seeing none, is there any discussion by members of the public on this item, either in person or on Zoom? All right. We have a couple people here, so we will take it up now. If you could provide your name and neighborhood, and you'll have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_06]: Good evening, Councilmembers. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. My name is Kevin Duffy. I'm here with my wife, Barbara Auditore Duffy, representing Auditore Duffy family, which we live on McCormick Ave. And my initial concerns were a little bit of lack of transparency. I found out about this a couple hours ago. I had no time to prepare for this. And I appreciate the problems with affordable housing. We have six children. in ranging in ages from 21 to 33. It's very difficult to get a house, OK? But I know the city of Medford, anytime something is built in this city, has say or at least knowledge of what is going to be built. Nobody in my neighborhood knows about this except one neighbor who called me, and that's why I'm here before you tonight.

The transparency has to be a little better. And hearing what the council has said tonight about why is McCormick Ave the only focus, I went on that same website today, and I saw many, many parcels throughout the city of Medford. But it only seems to be after tonight, I have really big concerns that it's just McCormick Ave. There's no other motion for any other parcel in the city that I've heard of. And I'm sure if the councilors, and don't take this the wrong way, four houses away from you, if there was a piece of land that is all rock, and it's hard enough to get an emergency vehicle from Lila, I don't know if you guys know the neighborhood at all, but it's very narrow. I mean, there's been potholes at the bottom of Lila that haven't been fixed in I don't know how long. They put patch on it, it comes up. I don't complain about it. We love our neighborhood. We love our city. But the residents of McCormick Ave have been paying taxes for decades, decades. And the city wants the tax revenue. I understand that. They want the tax revenue. They want to help out for the Affordable Housing Act. I understand that. It's an honorable thing to do. If I could, I would try to help too. But this seems to be so haphazard. So McCormick Ave is the only place And I haven't heard, again, tonight with all the councils, I haven't heard any other property in the city mentioned.

[SPEAKER_06]: It's a dead-end street, you've got car park, there's kids all over the place, and it's going to be sold to somebody who's going to put up something that we don't even know, and you're talking rock ledge. It is going to be a disruption. To the people in McCormick Ave, for years, it's going to take just to get to the rock to be able to build something on those lots. I mean, it's going to be like an earthquake every day, never mind the dust, the traffic. If you take a right on Lila, and there's people parked on the road, you cannot get an emergency vehicle up the street. And it's a concern of mine, being a retired police officer. And I am a veteran, and I appreciate what you said about the veterans office today. But I mean, it just seems to be so haphazard. I would think that the city would be more transparent with the people who've been living here for decades.

It's like, OK, we want to move somebody in. Here's a chance to make a tax dollar. But what about the people who've been paying taxes for, I mean, there's people in the neighborhood who've lived there for 50, 60, 70 years. And they don't even know about it, obviously, because I'm the only one here from a corner of town. I mean, I don't know how that happens. Like, we know when they're going to do street cleaning. And if your car's not moved, it's going to get towed. Why didn't we know about this?

I mean, if any of you find out you have parcels in your neighborhood, make a motion to make that parcel. But it seems to be McCormick Ave.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I understand. I just want to say, you know, this came up about a year ago. So we considered it. It was at the time the mayor had sent us this proposal. I think at that time the council had voted it down. No final decisions being made tonight.

[Unidentified]: I'm sorry, I'm a little passionate about it because I didn't know.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: It's your neighborhood. It's your neighborhood. And I grew up running around on McCormick Ave. Yeah, I was like, I know Anthony and others, you know, so yeah, I know McCormick and I know these parcels and, you know. you know, we're kids running around in the woods, right?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Exactly. So, so I know the parcels and I just want to just reassure you, you know, in terms of the transparency and the communication, um, the conversation really was started a year ago by the mayor. It's coming back up tonight. Before we have any sort of decision, there would be certainly more meetings of this body. If we were to authorize the mayor to take on any process, then she would have to start a process. Um, In terms of selling the property, there would be a public process. We can't just pick and choose. The city would have to do a bidding process, a conversation. And then assuming someone was to buy it, even if it went on the market, does someone think they can build something there? If nobody thinks they can build anything there, they're never going to buy it. There's like a many, many steps before anything happens.

[SPEAKER_06]: I understand that. This is the baby steps of what's going to happen.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. But I appreciate and understand where you're coming from on it in terms of why this place and why nowhere else.

[SPEAKER_06]: That's the whole thing. Thank you for bringing that up, Councilor. Thank you for bringing that up. I really appreciate it. No. And I think that's a completely- I didn't know that. I thought this was going on all over the city. And then you all were talking. And the Councilor that's on the Zoom, thank you for mentioning that. And I trust- in government. I fought for it. I went to war for this democracy. And I trust in you people. But also, don't forget the people that have been living here for years and paying taxes. And we deserve every bit of consideration when something like this happens. And I'm not against affordable housing being built there.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Sure. Absolutely. You know I just wanted to reassure you. You know I appreciate you see your street on an agenda and you say what the heck is going on. So I totally get that. And we are going to have another meeting on it. try to bring in the other city departments to understand is there a more comprehensive approach we could take on this? Why was this what was initially suggested by the mayor's office?

[SPEAKER_06]: I just don't understand why all of a sudden McCormick Ave and not this street, that street. There were 50 of them being talked at at the same time? Yes, but it kind of seems kind of fishy to me that just McCormick Ave.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: And if you guys are able to send me an email or something, I will try to make sure that you get reached out to when this comes back up for a committee meeting.

[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you, Councilor. I appreciate all your time. Sorry if I got a little too fast. No, no, I get it.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Again, I think hindsight, you know, this is something that, you know, I'm up and down. I know a lot of your neighbors, and I should have reached out and said that, but I think that, like Councilman Beall said, it was the kickoff where tonight starts a conversation. I like the fact that we share publicly what the issues are and then bringing all of them forward so we can look at all of them in totality. So if I could take, turn the clock back, I think my, you know, one of my biggest things is really the transparency piece. You know, I only brought it forward because that was the one that was offered a year ago. So if I could do it again, I would really let you know, I would want to make sure that the residents know I actually I think the reason why you do know is because the neighbors called and they said, George, what address is that? So when I explained, it's a parcel, but it falls in a certain address. So yeah. And again, right. I think we all do, but I think most of us do, but I think that I want to apologize. I think if I 50-50, you know, you take back the clock and say, look back and say, you know, moving this forward, McCormick is the only reason why it's because it was on. in the past, so that's why I was brought forward to start this conversation again. And I agree with you. This is something that, like Councilor Kalyan said, in totality, we should be looking at all the parcels. So I think McCormick was just that placeholder to start that conversation over again. I apologize that it was lost in translation because it It's easier said, like you said, if I was living on my street and all of a sudden you heard that without understanding why, I think that that would be an issue. So I could feel that and I apologize if that put any angst and especially a veteran's heart. So again, I think that we're in a position now that we're far away from building anything on McCormick, but this is also beginning that we can look at the whole process in totality. Yeah, yeah, so thank you and I apologize. Yeah, yeah, no, no, I get it. I get it, believe me. You guys are busy. Thank you. Thank you again for your time.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: This was a short one. I'm sure it didn't feel like that sitting there for two hours, but you know, you got in early. All right, we'll go to the stage, the podium, if you could provide your name and neighborhood and you'll have three minutes.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. Andrew Castagnetti, East Medford, Massachusetts. My only point is this, and maybe you've already covered it. If the city decides to sell these two parcels that are smaller, under 4,000 square foot each in the Fulton Heights, that's all well and fine to put the land back on the tax rolls. It helps. It's extremely important that, and you have to do it this way, you have to give the owners on either side, both sides of the parcel that are adjacent or adjoining these lots and give them first right of refusal. No. Why is it against the law?

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Mr. President, so we were told previously, because that was the question, that, you know, this is good because the butters can look at a smaller piece, especially 3,500 square feet are actually bigger than usual. The question that we had at the time a year ago was, oh, this is great. So if you bought 1,000 square feet and you could build onto your existing home, you have the right of first refusal. And we were told that legally that can't be done. The process has to be an open process for everybody. It can't be for one person because the city-owned property, I believe. At least that's what the description that I got a city solicitor who's not a city solicitor, so.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yeah, that might be true, and maybe it's not true, and maybe that can be debated. Who knows? I'm not that smart, but it seems unfair that the people that have been living next door to this for decades don't have the right to buy it, even at a discount, mind you. Doesn't that make sense? I gotta go. Bye.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. Common sense. All right, so we have a motion to refer this to Committee of the Whole with a whole bunch of amendments. Do you have them, Laurel? All right, do we want to read it back? All right, it's going to the committee with everything everybody wanted. On that motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. I'm in the affirmative. None in the negative. The motion passes. You don't want to stick around? Have a good one. Thank you for coming. All right. 26-183, resolution to send a comment letter to the MWRA Cambridge and Somerville Combined Sewer Overflow Project Team. I will summarize this, which is that there is a group called the MWRA Cambridge Somerville Combined Sewer Overflow Project Team. They are developing the long-term control plan for the Mystic River, Charles River, and Alewife Brook. And currently the recommended plan would allow sewage to be discharged permanently into the Mystic River, Charles River and Alewife Brook.

This is a proposed comment to the project team about their recommendation. This is a letter that I worked with some folks, Mystic River Watershed Association and some of the environmental groups to request a different plan that would ensure that by essentially the 2050 plan for these rivers would not allow sewage to be discharged into the river as we, I think, are all aware of the impacts of the combined sewer system. And if it rains a lot, our sewer runs into our stormwater system and then can overflow into our beautiful Mystic River. It's especially bad if you're ever driving after a big rainstorm up Route 16. If you're parked at Route 16 and Mass Ave in Arlington and Cambridge, you can smell the sewage from your car. So that flows down the Elwhafe Brook into the Mystic River and through Medford. So I'm requesting my colleagues to submit this letter to the team. Councilor Tseng and then I do see Commissioner McGibbon.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears, for drafting this. Medford has worked so hard. I mean, Medford and the Commonwealth have worked so hard over the course of my lifetime to get the Mystic from a place that no one wanted to, you know, even be close to the water to a place where lots of residents, including me, and I know other Councilors, enjoy kayaking on it, enjoy walking by the water. enjoy, you know, the Mystic River in general. And it's such an asset to our community. It'd be a real shame if we reversed the progress that we've fought so hard for over the last few decades. So I'm very supportive of this and I would motion to approve and send this comment letter.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, Commissioner McGibbon, we'd love your take on it. And I know I have an email from you and I haven't had a chance to respond, so sorry we're doing it live.

[Tim McGivern]: That's okay. I've been following along on this project for quite some time. I'm on the advisory board for the city for the MWRA. So, you know, I want to be careful here because, you know, the letter you guys have proposed is a rejection. And I know you're working with Mr. Griver folks, you know, who, you know, want the ideal solution of zero CSOs, but that group has also acknowledged that the current plan is a step forward and it's progress. And it probably shouldn't be scrapped and rejected. So that's the first thing. So this is progress, and that's important to know. And I just, if you give me an opportunity, I would just like to share some facts that we should probably keep in mind.

Medford's going to be a large benefactor to this project. So we have more river bank of the Mystic River than any of these other places that are in the watershed, as well as in the MWRA communities. So we benefit from this plan from a water quality standpoint. Water quality should be the goal here, not reduction or not elimination of CSOs. While elimination of CSOs is important, and I think it could be a future goal, water quality is really what we should be focused on and what should be what we're headed towards is better water quality. Something that's affordable and also is holistic. In other words, addresses all pollutants. Stormwater is a huge pollutant to the Mystic River. You know, some would say more so than CSOs as far as frequency and the impacts.

So I don't think that this is necessarily a last step, because again, once you look at water quality, then you are constantly funding different pollutants to get them down systematically. So just try to keep that in mind. Since 1988, the CSO program has reduced CSOs by 88% approximately. basically 95% from 1998 is basically either reduced or treated before discharge. So huge strides. And it's impossible to know exactly when enough is enough because you spend more money for diminishing returns when it comes to water quality and reducing a pollutant. Right now, this plan, the current plan that's proposed, which is the 2050 typical year plan, is costing $1.29 billion. If we move towards a five-year plan instead of a typical year, the 2055 year plan, that goes up to closer to, I think it's like $3.4 billion. Yeah, $3.4 billion.

So that's, you know, two and a half times for, you know, not as much bang for your buck. And, you know, the thought is, well, there are other pollutants there too that need to be addressed with similar money, whether through the state or local rates. So just some important comments that come from the advisory board and some things to realize, I'll just read through them. The existence of a technically feasible higher design standards does not necessarily by itself establish appropriate regulatory endpoint. And that's important because we're talking about water quality. So you could spend, you know, hundreds of hundreds of millions of dollars to try to reach zero, but you're missing the mark when it comes to water quality because you have other pollutants that you're that you're trying to deal with as well.

The 25-year plan, which is what folks like this letter is recommending, would be even more than the five-year plan. So larger values, more complexities, and facilities, a much larger impact to communities. Medford, actually, I should say, doesn't have a combined sewer. So we wouldn't experience a lot of those impacts. But Cambridge and Somerville would for sure. Construction, for example, and just giant facilities. This I'm just going to read verbatim. The goal should be cleaner water, not simply a more stringent control metric. CSOs remain an important water quality concern, particularly because they can contribute to acute bacteria concentrations following wet weather events. But CSOs are not the only source affecting these waters. Stormwater, upstream pollution, and other non-CSO sources continue to cause substantial water quality impacts.

So environmental stewardship means looking at the whole problem holistically here. So it's an argument to evaluate water quality as a whole. Municipalities across the region already bear substantial responsibility for stormwater management, including through federal MS4 requirements, while also addressing illicit discharges, infiltration and inflow, aging sewer systems, flooding, climate resilience, and other water quality needs. Those responsibilities draw on the same finite local capacity, rate payers. Requiring communities to devote substantially greater resources to increasingly marginal CSO reductions can therefore materially reduce their ability to invest in other measures that may also improve water quality. Those trade-offs matter when deciding whether the additional environmental value of a higher CSO standard justifies its broader burden. Responsible environmental stewardship is not measured by how much is spent on a single pollution source. It requires looking at the whole problem and directing finite resources towards the combination of actions that can produce meaningful improvement in water quality.

Another talking point, the same households and businesses ultimately fund competing public needs. The MWRA sewer costs are one part of a broader set of public obligations, ultimately borne by the same residents and businesses. The same households and businesses that support the MWRA sewer costs also support local schools, public safety, roads, sewer systems, sewer rehab, drinking water infrastructure, flood resilience, public buildings, and other essential services. That does not mean dollars collected for one purpose can simply be redirected to another, but it does mean that those obligations ultimately draw on a finite capacity of the same communities, households, and businesses.

Almost done. I'm trying to summarize it. So really, the three things that I'm recommending, and I've recommended this to the mayor too, and we're working on a draft letter, is to approve the current April 30th draft updated CSO long-term control plan, which is the 2050 typical year plan. Acknowledge that it's a significant increase in water quality for the Mystic River that we benefit from the most. but not to require a higher level of control unless it's demonstrated that the incremental environmental and public health benefits are sufficient to justify the substantially greater cost, disruption, infrastructure demands, and long-term burden. And then third, if a material higher level of control is required, pair that additional mandate with meaningful and committed federal or state financial participation sufficient to materially reduce the incremental burden on local ratepayers. So I think those three recommendations acknowledge the progress of this particular plan.

says to continue to evaluate the pollution. And then if the EPA would like to reset regulations as a mandate, then you need to fund it as well to take the burden off of the rate payers. So that's all I have. And I'm welcome to answer questions. Thank you.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Well, my first question, Tim, is why are Cambridge and Somerville not as smart as Medford? build a no combined sewer, that seems to be a win for us.

[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I don't know. But that was the way they did it back then. Medford kind of lucked out because we have sewer interceptors from the MWRA that run through our community along the river that we can tie into. So we have probably, I don't know exactly how many, but over a couple of dozen municipal sewer connections. Most communities can't get that. So in other words, it's all traveling downhill to the big sewer of the MWRA.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, thanks, Tim. I'm just, you know, I'm glad to hear that at some point in the last hundred years, there was a, it's nice to hear when a good infrastructure decision was made. Yeah. So I appreciate your comment. I'm going to see if any other Councilors have any questions. I have a couple. All right. I'm not seeing any. It seems like what you're saying, Tim, is Incremental progress on this, incremental maybe significant progress on this. You believe that the plan as proposed by the project team consists of incremental but significant progress. And you would prefer we not recommend the, you know, not send this letter that says that we would prefer a no CSO alternative.

[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, I would be concerned that if it's rejected, then we're not making any progress. I don't think anybody wants sewage to go into the Mystic River. But, you know, small amounts of sewage do become harmless after a certain amount of dilution. But we also receive stormwater in those storms that produce effects in the river that create unswimmable conditions. So really, it's just being cautious here. you know, to acknowledge that water quality is done a little bit differently. You know, it's really diminishing returns after a certain amount of water quality improvements. But I know people disagree with me, but this is a very engineering look at this from a large infrastructure standpoint, where, you know, it would be a little bit silly to throw, you know, hundreds, tens of billions of dollars at something that's getting you only marginal I appreciate that. I can appreciate it from an engineering perspective. If we were the board deciding on the plan, I would have a different level of

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I guess my perspective is, you know, I guess my biggest question is around. like the 25-year plan versus the typical year plan versus the five-year plan. And it seems to me that with the climate crisis worsening, what we consider a typical year now, you know, what we consider a five-year or a 25-year storm in the future may be a typical year in the future. And what would the impact of a CSO be if we were getting a 25-year storm every year or multiple of them? And I'm kind of inclined to say let's put our name on the record to say we would prefer no CSO plan. I very much doubt that the decision making body is going to reject the plan based on our letter. And I'm guessing even with the like significant public input that they're getting, or at least that I've seen that they're getting, requesting kind of further CSO mitigation, I think from your engineering perspective, I'm guessing that the decision makers here are going probably approve a plan eventually that is closer to what you're talking about than kind of the most significant alternative that is possible. But that's just kind of my two cents on it. I'd like to see them like maybe take a little bit of a stronger, make the plan incrementally better above the incremental improvements that it already has and kind of try to factor in a little bit more of the concerns about escalating climate issues and storms. So that's just kind of where I'm coming from on it.

[Tim McGivern]: And I don't disagree for sure. I mean, I think that ideally I would want zero, you know, sewage entering the Mystic River. I think that's, you know, that's what everybody wants. It's just, you know, the idea of rejecting this plan, I think is a little, a little over the top. But, you know, again, that's my opinion. And, you know, there's one other thing I was going to say, but if I think of it, I'll bring it up again. Oh, I was gonna explain, sorry, the 2050 typical year. So that would be a typical year in the year 2050.

So that's what the current plan is, is to say that there will be no CSOs in a typical 2050 year. Right now we get a couple a year, a few a year. So take a few a year now, so those are not swimming days, they're not paddling days, After big rain events, and in 2050, it would be, you know, none during that typical year, of course, and you have the five year, which would then say no CSOs in five years of a typical 2055 year storm.

And then 25 is a 25 year storm. So those numbers are getting bigger, but the costs go grow exponentially with each one of those. So, you know, like like I was saying in recommendations, the letter that I'm trying to prepare with the mayor is going to say, yeah, this is good progress and here's why. But, you know, ultimately, we'd like to see no sewage going into the mystic. How do we get there? What's the right regulatory approach to that? And how does it also address the other pollutants while also providing funding and not issuing rate payers mandated regulations that we can't fund. So that's a big piece of this.

four billion for that five-year storm is significantly more than 1.3 billion for a one-year storm, a typical year storm, a typical year in 2050. There's a strikingly huge difference in costs. And the real question is, are we getting the benefit we want from those dollars? And should those dollars be spent on, say, stormwater pollution instead to get us that water quality, which is ultimately what we would like?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. Heard. All right, do we have any discussion, further discussion based on what Commissioner McGivern has shared with us? All right, thanks Tim. I appreciate the nuanced detailed view on this. All right, Councilor Callahan.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: I will admit after reading this, hearing from Commissioner McGivern, I, do not feel prepared to vote right at this moment on this. You know, I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I feel like I need to do more research. So that's all I need to have to say. I know I vote first, folks. You know, I've got to be that person who's like ready to go and I feel like I am not after hearing that, so.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. I mean, is there an amendment to the motion or alternative motion to be proposed?

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Could we, would people be opposed to sending it to a COW or? Councilor Tseng?

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: I think the one thing to be aware of is the public comment period ends on the 30th. Is that correct? I believe yes. Yeah.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Okay. I'm just going to say we're not deciding. I think we're putting our voice in with a lot of folks who are saying they prefer a stronger plan. I think I understand where Commissioner McGibbon is coming from, which is a stronger plan will cost more money. I think one of the reasons that the advocates are talking about kind a significantly stronger plan, which would also be more expensive, is that they believe, at least in my conversations with them, that the existing plan is basically fait accompli. Tim's worried it's not. I get that.

But I think we're putting our hat in the ring to say we'd like the plan to be We'd like the plan to go further than it goes now. I don't think it will ever go this far. I think this comes down to a fundamental question of negotiation, which is, do you ask for the compromise you want, or do you ask for the policy demand, which is, right, no CSO. Now, if no CSO is $50 billion and 99% reduction of CSO is $1 billion, I think you're going to land somewhere closer to $1 billion than $50 billion. Personally, my perspective is there should be no CSO.

Do I think we should spend $50 billion on that? No, but I'd like to. I think some folks have been very engaged with this, especially like Mystic River Advocates and the Watershed Association are saying they'd like to see the plan go further and this is the letter that they worked with us to draft. So that's my perspective on it.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thanks. All right. All right. Any amendments or further motions or are we going to stick with the original motion? Motion to approve. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, is there a discussion from members of the public? All right. On the motion, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion passes. All right. We have two more items, three more items, sorry, and I have misplaced a document here. Can I see your doc real quick? Thanks, Laurel. All right, we have 26133, this is Capital and General Stabilization Phone Request, Request to Police Chief Search. Do we have a representative of the administration to speak on this item? It keeps getting postponed because no one's here to talk about it.

All right, before we go to the table, I do have a question for Vice President Lazzaro. Have you been included in any of the police chief search?

[Councilor Emily Lazzaro]: No. Well, I was included on an email about a schedule. I have something in my calendar in like late November to be part of an in-person meeting, but that's the only thing I have.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. Yeah, I don't think we received any further communication on this. Clerk Siegel, have you seen any communication from the administration?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, okay. We have a motion to table by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Leming. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion is tabled. We have 26142 and 26142B, which is submitted by the mayor and the joint council paper, supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2027, the law department. We did receive an updated paper after we had requested it. It was sent to us for the October 13th meeting and then tabled to tonight. Dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approves the following supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2027 to fully restore the balance of the proposed law department budget originally presented on June 4th, 2026. So it's proposing $340,061.07, which is the cumulative cuts the council has made. The council has provided the first four months of funding but we have been waiting for the response. We got some response. We discussed it, I believe, on September 29th, which maybe was the one you weren't here for.

Clerk Siegel was not here for that one. And I think we extended for one month there were a number of requests that were made including does I think someone responded to in an email. I think Councilor Callahan had requested if the mayor would fund the city solicitor position separately. The administration said no. I can't remember the other one. Someone else made a request. Was it about the. I can't remember what the other request was but I think the answer was also no. I think at that meeting we did subsequently ask the administration to get back to us to let us know if they would move forward with bringing on a independent legal analysis of our legal department. The mayor had indicated in a late August letter that she was open to that. I brought up that the state auditor's office had said that they would be willing to review something like that for, a $10,000, essentially a $10,000 security deposit because they don't want people, cities coming to them with every little dispute. And I'm not sure, I haven't received any follow-up communication on that. Have you received any, Clerk Siegel?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. So that's where it's at. Is there a representative from the administration here tonight either in person or on Zoom to present on their appropriation request or to have a further response about whether or not we're moving forward with the audit the mayor agreed to? I'm not seeing any hands on Zoom. I'm not seeing anyone in the chamber. So I will go to my colleagues. Anyone interested on this one? Councilor Tseng.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Seeing as we don't. have much in the way of substantive updates. I've, I've gone back and forth about whether I should, whether we should just vote it down or make the cuts. But I don't want to harm anyone who's working in the department, so I did prepare some numbers. I would motion to cut the salaries line by $127,803.44. Sorry, say that again. Yeah. That would leave $18,257.63. To cut the ordinary line item by $169,750. which would leave $24,250. And then in total, that would be cutting by $297,553.44, leaving us with $42,507.63. And that would cover the next month.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, we have a motion by Councilor Tseng to make cuts in those amounts, which I'm hoping he will email the clerk. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Is there further discussion? I'm just indignant. I'm not voting for that. So that's just where I'm at. No one's even here. I think they've basically understood that. They're playing the same game they've been playing with us the whole time. They didn't send us any responses. They didn't even show up.

To me, that indicates that it's not important and doesn't need to be funded. And given the fact that we've gotten, I think, a string of abysmal legal memoranda serving as messaging and policy documents for the mayor. never mind we haven't even talked about the fact that we've spent tens of thousands of dollars for them to not defend a city ordinance and if residents hadn't intervened, you know, a judge, a magistrate judge has recommended that the court case be dismissed against the divestment ordinance in federal court.

which I think was the first thing we advised KP Law to do 11 months ago or whatever, nine months ago, was I think you should really argue that this should be dismissed because there's no standing. It seems that that's what the magistrate judge has recommended to the federal judge in the case. And KP didn't really fully make that argument or certainly made it in a more convoluted way. I'm just, you know. I'm dragging everything into it, but if this is important, someone would show up to talk about why it's important. And we would have gotten a response to the request that we've made. That's my position on it. I'm going to leave it at that. Councilor Tseng?

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Yeah. I mean, again, like I said earlier, I really could go either way. I think at this point, the work that KP law does actually puts our city in a more dangerous legal position. I also think that bad advice from KP Law has been used against individuals of our city staff, and I think that's really concerning. And I could go either way on it. I think I'm really disappointed that we don't have anyone here from the administration to be able to talk to, to give us a confirmation about the audit and the other things that we've been asking for.

At the same time, I don't want the folks who are already in the department and working to be hurt. And I don't believe that we have the numbers for that salary in particular, at least not in front of me right now.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I mean, we could not cut the salary. We could, yeah. Councilor Scarpelli.

[Councilor George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. And the easy thing to do is just say, OK, let's just forget about it. But it's funny that this is now shifted and to do it's like deflection. Now, we're not talking about the initial issue, which is the. Costs of legal representation that we see that has been absolutely destroying our community financially. When you look at all the money that we've wasted on fights, the fire department was here the other day, right? This was this year, 20 arbitrations, 19 victories.

By the way, those are the questions we were asking so we can understand how much money we spend to fight arbitrations that we lose. So these are the questions we don't know yet. So that's why this audit, this is why I said, okay, maybe the audit is the way to go. We'll get a better understanding. That's why I held off with moving this to the Secretary of State in hoping that the administration would give us what we've asked for. And it's funny because what was the first issue? It's way too much. What you're asking is too complicated. We don't know what you want.

We dummied it down to such a point that I believe Councilor Callahan put it perfectly. I believe she said, let's do an Excel sheet with six or seven different lines and that's it. That's all we asked for. And instead we got this convoluted, you know, around the block, different comments and different numbers that somebody spent hours and hours investing in that had nothing to do what we asked for. Right? This is how much Malden spends. This is how much Arlington spends. I don't care. That's not what we asked for.

So that's what's the most frustrating part. We're talking about now, the focus is now on whether what to cut or hold in that budget. I'm tired. I'm tired. The more I feel about this, the more I move forward. That, you know, keep those salary, keep Janice's salary in there, because right now, she's doing the best she can. at least answering the phones and taking information, because she has no authority legally to do anything in that office.

Anything. I mean, we sat in executive session the other day. Now, we can't talk about what was said in executive session, but we all know what was said in executive session. And we heard what was said in executive session. And until we make a stand, until we stop this, because again, It looks like the mayor is moving forward with initiatives to hurt people, and that's our workforce. We look at all these lawsuits. The leader of the team just comes up and gives us the actual court documents, the minutes of the meetings, the breakdown of what the mayor is saying on the stand.

And it's a lose lose. We just keep giving money away. And I've asked the mayor to just stop hurting employees. Just stop so we can move forward with this. But we had time and time again more issues. That's why I've gone to the point where I've said, you know what? Let's bring the department heads now, right? Let's bring the chief in front of us so we can ask the chief if we can help mediate some of these issues so it doesn't have to go to legal, so both the unions and the city don't have to spend money, which the city has lost 99% of the time. So I know this is beating a dead horse. This is getting exhausting. But I'm at the point that, OK, if no one's here to talk about it and they don't want to give us what we need, then move forward. Cut it and move on.

because this is frustrating. At least we know if we stop the bleeding on our end, they can't. If they don't have any money to spend, they can't spend any more money. At least an hour can control. They can circumvent whatever she does or whatever. They've done it for years, right? That they're not taking out of the long line. They're taking it out of every other line. They're saying, you know what, Councilors, you know what, take whatever you want. Keep doing this month to month because you know what? We're going to pay the lawsuits out of this. We're going to pay the lawyers fees out of this account. And in the meantime, we have no staff.

We have a situation where we still don't have a city solicitor. We now have, what is it, the building department that a person works one day a week. Now we have a person that's in the veterans department that works one day a week because we have no money for support staff that normal communities have when you lose your directors. So I know it's getting late, I'm done talking about it, but I'm at the point, Mr. President, that I agree with you. Maybe we move forward and just keep the administrative assistance line in and we cut the rest. Because if they don't care, you know. We need to move on legally and find other options. Maybe we do go to the Secretary of State, maybe we do subpoena, and we find legal avenues that we ask support. And again, I brought this up a year ago. Maybe it's at the point that we request that we take the vote and put it back on the mayor that we ask the state auditor to come in and audit our books to see where these financial issues are going and why we're not getting the answers we want. If that's the case, we put it on the vote here. We vote on it, that we send it to the auditor's office, and then we leave it into the mayor's office where she can either agree or disagree. Leave it to her now, because this is getting, this is getting exhausting.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. And I'll just add, you know, I think the last time we talked about this, we have a, we have a letter from the mayor saying she agrees to have someone coming from the outside, come look in. I think where we left it last time was, all right, come back to us and say, here's the plan to bring someone to look into it, here's how long it will take, and I believe I said at least as one vote that I personally would be willing to fund the law department through the completion of that review.

That's what's on the table. I don't think it was that hard of a lift to come to the meeting tonight with that information and say, okay, we're bringing either this firm on if the mayor wants to do that, or we're going with the state auditor's office. We sent now nine, ten months ago, again, a very specific, we would like someone independent to review these specific things. I think we've reiterated that like 35 times this year. I really think all the administration needs to do is come and say, okay, we already agreed to this. Here's who we're bringing on. Here's how long it will take. And then we can move ahead.

So, I don't really get why we're here. I guarantee you if we don't approve a full month's funding, we'll get a response. Councilor Mullane and then Councilor Lemmie.

[Councilor Liz Mullane]: Thank you. I don't think there's too much more to say than what's already been said about this. We've talked about it every single council meeting. I think everyone's exhausted on it. Obviously, what we've been doing of trying to fund at least once a month to keep this going has served us to not get any of the answers that we've wanted. But I also agree that I certainly don't want to cut someone's salary who is trying to work and keep the things moving. Certainly seeing some of the things come out of, you know, KP law when President Bears mentioned even the city charter and what we've received back from that, it was like, I can't believe this is happening. where we're spending money on and certainly things that have already been alluded to from other cases when we had the fire department up here as well, fire union talking about winning 13 out of 14. I mean, like, I just don't know how many times we can continue to hear the What currently is happening right now is not working and is certainly not working for the benefit of the City of Medford and the residents. And we're just losing money left and right. So I would also agree that let's keep the salary, but that's it. And I too would also like to see an audit done and actually get some information. If that means sending this to the mayor, whatever needs to happen next, because I think we're all exhausted by it and we just simply want some answers. And continuously doing this and pushing this one meeting to the next has not accomplished what we wanted to do. So maybe taking one more drastic step of just allowing for the salary is what is needed to hopefully get some movement on some of these answers that we're asking for.

[Councilor Matt Leming]: So for the few people that are still listening this late at night, about two years ago, the relationship with KP Law when I was still new was I reached out to them. I was able to schedule my own meeting with them to talk about an ordinance. Actually, I talked about What I talked about back then in that meeting was the draft of the ordinance that we just, the linkage fees that we just referred to the CDB tonight. And when I was reaching out to them on my own and meeting with them, Chief of Staff got wind of that, and she pretty quickly said, you can't just do that. You can't just reach out to KP Law on your own to have a conversation with them, even though you're the legislative body of the city. And if we did have a city solicitor, you'd be able to do that. No, we need to come up with a formal process of doing that so that you know, we don't have that sort of direct contact. And cue that to, it was like a week or two ago where we got the most absurd legal opinion from KP Law saying that under our charter, the mayor is, able to do partial vetoes. Never mind that that's not a thing. It never has been in any municipality that's had similar wording as our charter had. Never mind that in the State of Massachusetts something like that is completely unheard of except for appropriations bills where it is explicitly it is explicitly laid out that you can do that.

No, it was like this weird, yeah, the text of the legal memo was, it was something where when I read it, I was like, why are we paying these people? You know, like, what is this? And, you know, we're seeing this with the court case as well, where it just seems like our own city's legal representation is trying really hard to lose a case, even though they're supposed to be. defending the city's ordinances. So, yeah, I don't want to fund another month. I think one thing that we have learned is that the mayor only really ever responds if you play hardball every so often, and I think that this council has bent a little bit too often to these sorts of weird tactics. You know, I think KB Law, what they're doing is, you know, they realize that if they don't agree with what the mayor says, she's just going to like fire them and, you know, go with some other law firm. It's kind of a pattern at this point. So, I honestly just don't see the point in giving another month of funding for that. That's what I have to say.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Is there any further comment by members of the council? Councilor Callahan.

[Councilor Anna Callahan]: Do we need the actual numbers if we're going to approve only the salary I took? And would it be correct to take the full salaries, 230,000 approximately and divide it by 12 and approve of just that? Is that the way we're thinking about it?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I think that Councilor Tseng already did that for both with the 127-803-44 and 169,750 so I think if we went with what he had on salaries but then.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: That's the salary. That's the solicitor's salary and the office manager's salary I believe.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: What I did with that number was I took what's on that sheet, and I divided by eight, because it's eight months left in the fiscal year. We've already done four months. And then that was basically the number that we were left with. And I took the proposed amount, subtracted those two numbers, and that's the cut, if that makes sense. So the cut is the remainder.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: I think we're, I think that's how it has to happen, right?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes, we approve the amount that we're cutting, so we would be.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: And that salaries line that I used as a basis for calculations includes the city solicitor position, which is vacant. I do also have the budget in front of me, so we can look at, I, I, I, I don't know.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I just want to say. We're getting to the point of talking about how much money a person makes every month in a public meeting. So if we want to go down the road, I think it's fine. But I'm just going to note that.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Yeah. I mean, it's hard to clarify the numbers without saying what's said.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: So I'm just saying, if we go down that road, that's basically what we're going to be talking about, is all I was trying to say.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: So I think if anyone wants to request that, or if you want to go, Councilor Tseng.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: I mean, I think the question is, do we just fund salaries for the rest of the year or do we make that month cut? I mean, there seems like there's consensus to reject the rest of the ordinary budget which I would support.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: If you give the salary for the rest of the year, they'll just use it on something else and assume that we're going to refund it at some point, you know. I think there's even an argument to make that if you fund the salary line with the solicitor's amount. I mean, there's even an argument to make that if we don't do anything, They'll pay for it anyway and then come and ask us for an end of year transfer next June.

[Councilor Justin Tseng]: Yeah, exactly, exactly. Right, there's so many ways to get around this. So the question is just what's the council's preference at this time? And I'd be happy to calculate it.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right, do we have any further discussion? All right, I have here a suggestion which is the motion to cut the law department by the number for salaries 127-803-44 ordinary at the 194 which would be everything that was requested. Okay. And further request that the mayor submit the engagement letter with the state auditor's office or the private firm hired to review the city's legal practices and costs as agreed to by the mayor in their August email to the council and the timeline for the review to be completed along with the supplemental appropriation reflecting the council's 10-27-26 vote to cut the appropriation. So that's what I have.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. If you were, you just want to amend whatever you want. Yeah. All right. Motion of Councilor Callahan seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. Is there further discussion? Seeing no further discussion by members of the council, there's a discussion by members of the public. Seeing one in the chamber, if you could come to the podium, name and neighborhood, you'll have three minutes.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Villescaz, Andrew Castaneri, again, East Medford, Massachusetts. I can't believe that you people are surprised you're not getting this information, the math or audits. After all, I thought over 70% of We voters voted for an audit, Commonwealth of Massachusetts state audit. That's been about two years, come next week. Have we done the audit? Have we done the audit? Is it completed? Just a question. Anyone know? Someone help me. Help the people, please. Has it been done? Does anyone know?

[Andrew Castagnetti]: You're not sure, okay. So if you want to cut salaries, how about we take off 80% of all the state legislators and the state house?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? Seeing none, we have a motion seconded. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. All right, 26-184, Board and Commission Appointments, September 15th, 2026. We have Stacey Clayton reappointment to the Cemetery Trustees, James Mackey appointment to Civic Auditorium and Convention Center, that's the Chevalier. And Gene Mack, Board of Health, Gina Calagaro, appointment. I did know, I think there was a question that went around by email on, did we get an answer on people being appointed to multiple boards at the same time? Did somebody ask that? Councilor Mullane, did we ever get an answer? I saw an email.

[Councilor Liz Mullane]: Yes, I had asked the question because I was curious, you know, I believe that there are many people that would want to get more involved with the city. And when we see some of these come through, just, you know, how broad-based and how much we're spreading the word about these opportunities. for people who want to take a leadership role within the city. So my question was, you know, is there a limit to how many people or how many different committees people are allowed to be or serve on? And I believe that there is none. There is no limit as far as I understand that people can serve on as many.

And so I was just asking the question because I'd love to see as many new people as possible, you know, be getting involved. So, but I think that was the answer, that there is none, unless anyone knows anything different.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: All right. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. I just remembered that as kind of a loose end. All right. We have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve the appointment of these three folks, second and by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion by members of the council? Any discussion by members of the public? Seeing none, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Public participation. We have general public participation. If you'd like to speak on a matter for three minutes, please raise your hand on Zoom or come to the podium in the chamber. We have one in the chamber. Name and name him for the record, please. You'll have three minutes.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castaneri, Method, Massachusetts. I've come to praise Caesar. I wrote this up three weeks ago, four, five weeks ago. I heard a rumor that you bought real estate, a condominium in the East Method border. Is that true or false, Mr. Pierce?

[Councilor Zac Bears]: I'll address you at the end, but I just want to give you your full three minutes.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: Well, I'm not going to say anything else if you didn't buy it.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: I pay excise tax. Me too. And efficient tax. I want to say congratulations. I'm very happy for you. Very happy. And I'm sure your grandfather is also happy, whoever the great man is. In 20 years, you'll own a place instead of 20 or 30 years of rent receipts, unless you paid cash.

[Andrew Castagnetti]: OK. This is a huge difference in your life finances. I wish you the best. My only request is that you tell your people not to vote for the democratic socialists, especially the communist politicians, because some of them said they will take away our homes. They would really, really suck big time. It is unacceptable. In our opinion, also, this is not my father's Democratic party no more. Good night, people. I'm very happy for you, Mr. Beers. I wish you the best. Good luck. And break a leg, but watch your steps. Peace.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Thank you very much. And I will encourage my neighbors not to vote for communists for condo trustee. All right. Any further public comment on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.

[Councilor Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in favor, moved, none negative. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Zac Bears total time: 70.56 minutes total words: 12034	Emily Lazzaro total time: 5.38 minutes total words: 738	Matt Leming total time: 17.92 minutes total words: 2514	Liz Mullane total time: 4.56 minutes total words: 713
Justin Tseng total time: 13.52 minutes total words: 1976	Anna Callahan total time: 3.5 minutes total words: 576	George Scarpelli total time: 21.11 minutes total words: 3495	Andrew Castagnetti total time: 3.93 minutes total words: 484